ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Per Capita Carbon Emissions

David Mowat: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland regarding the level of per capita carbon emissions and the future policy of those countries.

Edward Davey: I frequently have talks with my German, Dutch and Irish counterparts. In April, for example, I attended informal energy and environment councils in Dublin, where discussions with other member states, including Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland, focused on the EU 2030 climate and energy framework.

David Mowat: The March European Environment Agency report confirmed that the UK’s per capita emissions are among the lowest in Europe, and in 2011 they fell at double the rate of those of the rest of the EU. Furthermore, the recent emissions trading scheme vote by the European Parliament means the UK has a carbon price six times higher than the rest of the EU, and now we are seeing several countries moving ahead to build coal stations that will not use carbon capture and storage. Is there a risk that we are increasingly acting unilaterally in this area?

Edward Davey: Let me reassure my hon. Friend. We work very closely with our European colleagues, and I formed the green growth group, currently working with about nine other member states, including our German and Dutch colleagues. We need to reform the ETS to make sure we have a functioning and effective carbon market in Europe, and we also need an ambitious 2030 target for greenhouse gas emissions. The UK Government have agreed that we will seek a 50% target in the context of winning a global climate change treaty.

Peter Lilley: What is the point of us closing coal-fired power stations if Germany is opening 20 of them? What is the point of
	us having a carbon tax and reducing emissions if we thereby release trading permits for other countries in Europe to emit more carbon?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. He is not right about the German position, and I refer him to the April 2013 report by Pöyry, which we commissioned and which is on our website. It examines the reality of what is happening with new coal-fired power stations in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Some 10 new coal and lignite coal projects are under construction in Germany, because the final investment decisions on them were taken in 2005 and 2008, when there was a very different policy environment, but four have been postponed and 22 have now been abandoned, so the situation in Germany is different from the one my right hon. Friend describes.

Ian Swales: Carbon emissions per capita statistics fail to recognise the effect of imports and exports on consumption. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will not seek to meet UK targets through policies that close down our energy-intensive industries, thereby exporting jobs and importing carbon?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right. We do not want to see carbon leakage; that would not help the climate, and it would not help our economy. That is why I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills a very generous package, working with the Chancellor, to compensate energy-intensive industries for the indirect costs of the ETS and the carbon price floor, and it is also why we have exempted energy-intensive industries from the costs of contracts for difference. We want to ensure we make progress on climate change, but we also want to ensure we keep successful businesses in the United Kingdom.

Energy Bills

Andrew Gwynne: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Gregory Barker: This coalition Government are determined to help hard-working families with the cost of living. We have a range of initiatives to help with energy bills. From the Prime Minister’s proposals to get consumers on to the cheapest energy tariffs to our flagship green deal, and from the warm home discount to our promotion of collective switching and building a more competitive energy market, this Government are putting the consumer first.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister must be aware that the respected think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research has produced a report that shows that if the energy market were more competitive, bills could be reduced by at least £70 from efficiency savings alone, so why will he not get behind Labour’s plans to break the dominance of the big six by ensuring that they supply energy into a pool to enable more businesses to access the market and to bring down bills for customers?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman will forgive us if we do not take lessons on how to widen the big six from the party that created the big six. When Labour
	came to office there were 14 major participants in the energy sector; when they left office, the number had shrunk to six. We believe our radical energy market reforms that are going through the House are the way to bring in real competition.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that making bills simpler and easier to understand is a big step towards empowering consumers to allow them to make the best choices and get the best deals?

Gregory Barker: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is, as ever, spot on. We have been working very closely with Ofgem to ensure that consumers are not baffled by the information on their bills and that they can make informed choices. Our market reforms will make it even easier for them to get the best deal.

Iain McKenzie: This House was told that the green deal would be the biggest home improvement scheme since the second world war, creating thousands of jobs and hundreds of new businesses. If that were true, why does Enact Energy, which has been in the insulation business for 20 years, cite late payments from the green deal as having put it into administration, resulting in the laying off of all its staff?

Gregory Barker: Obviously, we are very sorry when any business goes into administration, but I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little hasty. It is very early days for the green deal and for one business that, sadly, has gone into receivership there are dozens, if not hundreds, of new small and medium-sized enterprises that are starting up to come into the new competitive marketplace that we are creating.

John Pugh: What steps are being taken to stop profiteering by the National Grid, which can charge a fortune to move or change a domestic meter?

Gregory Barker: If my hon. Friend has real evidence of profiteering, we would love to see it. If he shares it with us, we will take steps to crack down on it.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that smart metering gives the consumer—the householder—real information on how much energy they are using? How quickly can we get smart metering into every home in Britain, hopefully along with a carbon monoxide detector that will save people’s lives?[Official Report, 12 June 2013, Vol. 564, c. 1MC.]

Gregory Barker: First, on carbon monoxide detectors, the hon. Gentleman is the champion in this House of that very important technology and I thank him for his engagement with my Department. We are working closely to ensure that the green deal will push through the roll-out of carbon monoxide detectors.
	On smart meters, we now have what we believe to be the most ambitious programme in Europe, beginning in earnest in 2014 and completing by 2019. It is very exciting and very radical.

Caroline Flint: On 12 occasions the Prime Minister has promised to force the energy companies by law to put everyone on to the cheapest tariff, but clause 121 of the Energy Bill clearly states that the power to require an energy company to change a customer’s tariff applies only to people on closed tariffs. There are 25.5 million households in Britain. How many are on closed tariffs?

Gregory Barker: I cannot give the right hon. Lady the exact figure off the top of my head, so I will write to her on that. The Labour party is in complete denial. The Prime Minister pledged radical action to put everyone on to the cheapest tariffs for them. We have come forward with a solution and we have put it into law; the Opposition had 13 years to do that and did nothing for consumers. We are taking radical action to cut through the swathe of tariffs that they left consumers when they left office.

Caroline Flint: I have tabled written questions, I have asked Ofgem and now I have asked the Minister, and nobody can tell me how many people will find themselves on a better deal, let alone save money.
	Let us look at another promise. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State told the House that the Energy Bill would give Ofgem the power to force energy companies to compensate consumers, something I called for in October 2011. Ofgem is undertaking 15 formal investigations with another 12 cases at informal review stage. Will the Minister confirm that even after the Energy Bill has received Royal Assent and even if there is evidence of wrongdoing in any of those cases, Ofgem will have no powers to force the companies to pay a single penny in compensation to their customers?

Gregory Barker: It is a big pity that the right hon. Lady first started taking an interest in these matters in 2011 and not during the 13 years for which Labour was in government when it did nothing to address those issues for the consumer. I am happy to say that our Energy Bill takes those issues into account and Ofgem will be able to take them into account as the investigations go through. This Government are putting the consumer first after 13 years of inaction from Labour.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Leigh, not here.

Decarbonisation Target

Chi Onwurah: What his assessment is of the potential effect on the UK wind industry of not setting a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Paul Blomfield: What representations he has received on setting a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Alison Seabeck: What representations he has received on setting a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Diana Johnson: What representations he has received on setting a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Edward Davey: The Government have listened to a wide range of views on the issue of setting a decarbonisation target and have legislated to set one. We fully recognise that investor certainty is essential to delivering our energy and climate goals at the least cost and have already provided very clear signals to industry about the long-term trajectory of the electricity sector; for example, through our commitment to the levy control framework, through the Energy Bill, through carbon budgets and through our commitment to ambitious long-run targets on renewables, power sector decarbonisation and carbon emission reductions.

Chi Onwurah: When I asked the Prime Minister yesterday to show some leadership and stand up for British business and green jobs by setting a target, he claimed that business was against it, but when the Secretary of State was asked earlier, he could not name a single business that opposed it. Can he now name a business that has thanked him for voting against the target?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady needs to look at what has happened. We have drafted the legislation so that we can set a target and that has been welcomed. She should remember that when the draft Energy Bill was published and we first started to discuss electricity market reform, there were no proposals to set a power sector decarbonisation target—not from the Opposition or from any other party in this House—but I, as Secretary of State, argued in the Government to set such a target, and that is what we have done.

Paul Blomfield: We have very little economic growth in this country at the moment, but last year the CBI estimated that one third of the growth that there is comes from green business. To keep growing, green businesses say they need certainty about Government policy and they want a target in law to decarbonise the power sector by 2030. Why are the Government refusing to listen?

Edward Davey: I am afraid it is the Opposition who are refusing to listen. They should look at the Energy Bill, in which we have legislated for the power to set a decarbonisation target—the first country in the world to do so.

Alison Seabeck: On Tuesday, the Government said they opposed the 2030 decarbonisation target, in part on the ground that it would increase bills. If that were so, one would expect Fuel Poverty Action to agree with the Government, but it does not. Instead, it said:
	“in failing to set a target for clean energy, the Government has yet again let down hard-up UK households.”
	Will the Secretary of State explain his position in the light of that statement and say whether it would also apply to his long-grass target?

Edward Davey: I am afraid the hon. Lady has not read the Bill; she needs to go back and do some more research. The difference in the debate has been about when the target is set, not if a target is set. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) dealt with whether it should be set in 2014; the Government have legislated to give us the power to set it
	in 2016, 14 years before it needs to be met. That is an ambitious position and we are yet again leading the world.

Diana Johnson: On Tuesday, most Liberal Democrat MPs tore up their own party policy to join the anti-green Tories in voting down a carbon target, which would have provided the certainty needed for Siemens finally to commit to coming to Hull. Would the Government have shown greater urgency if it was about jobs in Kingston upon Thames, rather than Kingston upon Hull?

Edward Davey: I worry about all the Kingstons in the United Kingdom and as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I represent all of them. I am working extremely hard to make sure we get investment in the energy sector in this country and we are working with Siemens. The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, in fact, Siemens did not sign the most recent letter from a number of companies about this issue. In our discussions with Siemens, the issues that have come up are contracts for difference, strike prices, ports and infrastructure, and we are working with the company. The hon. Lady ought to get behind us and support us.

Stephen Mosley: One of the key ways the Government can decarbonise power generation is by increasing investment in the nuclear sector. URENCO has a base in Capenhurst in my constituency. In April, the Government announced that they were to sell their one third share in the company, and in May the Dutch Government announced that they would sell their one third share. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of the sale?

Edward Davey: We will give a full update in due course, but URENCO is owned by three countries—Germany, the Netherlands and the UK—and we are working closely with our partners to take the sale forward.

Nick Brown: The Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) was not satisfactory. How does he account for the dramatic decline in levels of private sector investment in the renewables sector?

Edward Davey: Since this Government came to power, there has been a very big increase in investment in renewables. It is true that in the past few months the investment has not continued at the rate that we have seen. Why is that? Because people are waiting for the draft strike prices for contracts for difference for renewables, which we will publish next month. We are making real progress on our electricity market reform, and I am delighted to remind the House that on Tuesday this House voted for the Energy Bill on Third Reading by 396 votes to 8. That shows that we have cross-party support for our reforms and we are taking them forward.

Mid-Wales Connection Project

Glyn Davies: What assessment he has made of the level of support for onshore wind in those areas affected by the mid-Wales connection project.

Michael Fallon: Financial support for onshore wind from 2013 to 2017 was reduced by 10% from 1 April 2013. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome this morning’s announcement that local people will now have more control over wind farm developments in their area. They will be consulted earlier and they will have more say against turbines that are poorly sited or inadequately justified.

Glyn Davies: Since power to decide large onshore wind farms—those over 50 MW—is not devolved to the Welsh Government, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the changes to planning policy that will be announced this morning will apply to the wind farms that the mid-Wales connection is being built to accommodate?

Michael Fallon: I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on any specific wind farm proposal that is subject to the local planning authority and potentially to the Planning Inspectorate and Ministers, but as he will shortly hear in more detail from the unstarred question which I think you have allowed, Mr Speaker, the planning guidance is to be clarified to ensure that the visual impact of turbines, the cumulative impact of turbines and local factors are taken more clearly into account before consent is given.

Mr Speaker: The Minister got the U right, but the U is not for unstarred; it is for urgent.

Duncan Hames: I welcome local authorities being allowed to make their own decisions on the merits of wind turbine applications. Does the Minister agree that setting excessive minimum separation distances, as proposed in a private Member’s Bill in the House of Lords last year, or more recently by Wiltshire council, only serves to deny local communities the chance to have their say?

Michael Fallon: I am not persuaded that minimum distances are the answer, because it is important to take into account the factors that apply to every specific application and these things should be judged locally and individually on a case-by-case basis. However, in the clearer planning guidance that is being issued today it is the visual impact as much as the siting of the turbines that will now be taken more fully into account.

Green Investment

Pauline Latham: What steps he is taking to encourage green investment.

Gregory Barker: The coalition is committed to growing the green economy. An unprecedented £29 billion of new investment has been announced in renewable energy alone since 2010. We are driving further green investment through the Energy Bill, the green deal and the energy company obligation, the green investment bank, our carbon capture and storage competition, the reformed feed-in tariff, the renewable heat incentive, and our support for low-carbon research and innovation.

Pauline Latham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his article in The Daily Telegraph today showing that we are working closely with Sweden on these matters. What assessment has he made of the proposed EU anti-dumping tariffs on the Chinese solar PVs?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right. We are very concerned by the impact of EU tariffs on the UK solar industry. In the past three years we have added about 2.5 GW of solar here in the UK. We are making great progress but that could be jeopardised if those tariffs go ahead. I have personally been to Brussels with a number of key stakeholders from the UK solar industry to lobby the Commission, and we will continue to fight on for open borders and for the interests of the UK renewables industry.

Nick Smith: Will the Minister explain why the UK has fallen to seventh in the world for investment in clean energy since the Government came to power?

Gregory Barker: There are a number of surveys, but the Ernst and Young survey shows that the UK is now the fifth most attractive place for renewables investment and deployment, up one place on last year.

Andrew George: The announcement by the Scottish Government of the relaunch of the marine renewables commercialisation fund, while welcome, has, as my right hon. Friend knows, created an imbalance between that and Wave Hub in west Cornwall. What can the Government do to ensure that the Scottish Government and this Government work in partnership on marine renewables?

Gregory Barker: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a keen champion of UK-wide marine energy. Under this coalition, we have opened a marine energy park in the south-west, and also in the waters off the north of Scotland. It is vital that we develop the marine resource right the way around the British Isles. However, I take on board the point raised by my hon. Friend, who is a big champion of marine energy in the south-west, and I will be happy to meet him to discuss it further.

Katy Clark: Why does research by Bloomberg New Energy Finance show that investment in renewables has more than halved since this Government came to power?

Gregory Barker: Actually, as I said, an unprecedented sum of over £29 billion has been invested in renewables since the coalition came to power. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there has been a slight tailing off in recent months, but that is to be expected, just as we expect a real acceleration once the strike price is announced and the Energy Bill is enacted.

Mr Speaker: Mr Nuttall, are you still seeking to trouble the scorers?

David Nuttall: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I want to pursue further the EU’s imposition of tariffs. Perhaps the Minister could explain how on earth this will do anything to make it easier for people, if they
	wish, to install solar panels, and how on earth it will do anything to make it cheaper for those struggling to pay their energy bills.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend and I are absolutely on the same page on this matter. That is why I am fighting this EU proposal very hard. It is not just me; 18 other member states take a similar view to us. We are determined to continue to push the EU Commission to come to a sensible agreement with China and to make sure that the EU stands for free trade and open borders.

Tom Greatrex: One significant form of low-carbon green investment that the Secretary of State spoke about during his speech to the Met Office on Monday is carbon capture and storage. His predecessor told the House in October 2011, when Scottish Power pulled out of the Longannet project, that he guaranteed that there would be no Treasury backsliding on the capital funds for CCS demonstrator projects in the competition. Will the Minister confirm whether that remains the case—yes or no—and whether the £1 billion is still available?

Gregory Barker: Yes, it does.

Tom Greatrex: I am grateful for that answer, and I am sure that those in the industry who will be slightly disconcerted by the tenor of some of the remarks by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), during the passage of the Energy Bill will be gratified as well. However, may I press the Minister a little further? Given that the Cabinet Office project assessment review that I obtained last year said that in the current comprehensive spending review only £200 million was available, will the remainder of the £1 billion be available for the next CSR period? Can he confirm that whatever else he has given up in his less grand bargain with the Treasury on DECC’s budget, that money is safeguarded for CCS in the next CSR period?

Gregory Barker: I am very happy to scotch the hon. Gentleman’s baseless scaremongering and political point-scoring. The fact of the matter is that we are going forward with the CCS programme, and it is going to be successful, unlike Labour’s failed attempts at CCS. We have two preferred bidders in place, and it is backed by £1 billion, putting the UK at the front of the global race for carbon capture and storage.

Fuel Poverty

Julie Hilling: What recent assessment he has made of the likely level of future fuel poverty in the UK.

Mark Lazarowicz: Whether he plans to take further steps to reduce the level of fuel poverty in the UK.

Fiona O'Donnell: What recent assessment he has made of the likely level of future fuel poverty in the UK.

Edward Davey: Recently published statistics show a modest fall in fuel poverty in 2011 compared with 2010, from 4.75 million UK households to 4.5 million UK households. This is welcome, but we are determined to do more. Our comprehensive policy package includes targeted energy efficiency measures under the green deal and the energy company obligation, direct bill rebates under the warm home discount and, of course, measures through the Energy Bill to back Ofgem’s proposals to simplify the market.

Julie Hilling: Under the previous Labour Government, the number of people in fuel poverty fell by 1.75 million. In the past two years, the number of households in fuel poverty has gone up from one in five to one in four. When next year’s figures come out, will the number of people in fuel poverty be higher or lower than when Labour left office?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady will know that during the previous Parliament, when Labour was in office, fuel poverty grew in every single year and that, according to the latest figures, it has now gone down. In many ways this is a rather odd debate. The Government commissioned Professor Hills to review how we measure fuel poverty and he has come up with proposals that have gained wide-scale acceptance. We have consulted on them and will respond shortly to that consultation. We believe that the old measurements of fuel poverty, which are still in use, need radical reform so that we can better target fuel poverty policy.

Mark Lazarowicz: The problem with Government measures such as putting the consumer on to the cheapest tariff—if that ever happens—is that they will not make much difference if the tariff prices themselves and energy prices are high. The main beneficiaries of the green deal are not people on low incomes, but people who will be able to take up the arrangements. What is the Secretary of State doing to help people on low incomes who face high energy bills now, particularly given the high fuel prices over the past few months?

Edward Davey: We have a whole range of measures. For a start, the warm home discount helps more than 2 million low-income people, including 1 million of the poorest pensioners, by taking £130 off their bill directly. Schemes such as collective switching mean that we are helping people club together to exercise power in the market to get better rates. The simplification of tariffs proposed by Ofgem will mean greater competition and choice for people. We have a whole range of measures. On energy efficiency, the energy company obligation, through the affordable warmth and carbon saving communities schemes, is helping people in fuel poverty.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Secretary of State clearly thinks he is doing a great job on fuel poverty. In which case, why does his own Department’s public attitudes survey show that concern about energy bills has risen from 49% last year to 59% this year? Is not this another example of a Government who are out of touch with ordinary people?

Edward Davey: I am extremely concerned by energy bills. We need to do as much as we possibly can and some of our new policies will help people. I say to the Labour party that it is this coalition Government who are reforming tariffs to take away the confusion and complexity that the previous Government failed to tackle, who are looking into collective switching to help people get a better deal from energy companies, and who are getting more competition in our energy market. We are taking a whole range of measures to help consumers.

Derek Twigg: Despite the initiatives that the Secretary of State has referred to, in the real world bills are going up and the energy companies are making massive profits. Thousands of my constituents are having difficulties paying their bills. When did the Secretary of State last meet the energy companies, and did he raise with them the amount of profit they are making and what was their answer?

Edward Davey: I think I met the big six together in one group last month. I will have to clarify the date on which we spoke. We discussed a number of issues. I made it clear to them that competition and consumer service are critical. One of the best ways to make sure that companies make reasonable profits is through healthy competition.

Energy Efficiency

David Rutley: What steps he is taking to ensure the UK leads the way in energy efficiency.

Edward Davey: This Government’s November energy efficiency strategy clearly sets out the importance of reducing our energy demand and how the UK has an opportunity to lead the world in improving its energy efficiency. Game-changing initiatives such as the green deal, electricity demand reduction and the roll-out of smart meters are central to realising this opportunity.

David Rutley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that helping to improve home insulation is vital when helping to take people out of fuel poverty? What is this Government’s energy company obligation doing to help vulnerable and lower-income families in that vital task?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Energy prices have gone up massively on global markets and we as a Government need to cushion people from those rising prices by helping them with energy efficiency, and through the green deal and ECO we are doing just that. The affordable warmth component of ECO is already making a major difference for people in fuel poverty and helping to tackle it.

Luciana Berger: I welcome the Secretary of State’s saying that he wants to support people, but there has been a 97% plummet in the number of cavity wall insulation installations, one in four insulation workers has lost their job since December and, according to industry reports, just three people are paying back a green deal loan on their electricity bill. When is he going to make the green deal a good deal, so that the ambition that we all share is achieved?

Edward Davey: It is already a good deal. I understand the issue in the cavity wall insulation market, but the hon. Lady will understand that there are very few cavity walls left to fill. The real issue in the building fabric of the nation is solid walls. There are 7 million solid walls that are yet to be treated for energy efficiency. The last Government did almost nothing to tackle that. The green deal and ECO will do something about it. That is where the biggest wins are available and we are proud of what we are doing.

Green Deal

Damian Hinds: What recent progress he has made on the roll-out of the green deal.

Gregory Barker: The coalition is committed to helping consumers up and down the UK reduce their energy bills by driving energy efficiency. The green deal went live on time, as planned, on Monday 28 January. By the end of April, more than 18,000 assessments had been carried out. Later this month, we will publish data on the number of green deal plans and a breakdown of measures installed through the green deal and ECO.

Damian Hinds: It is encouraging to hear of so many assessments, but how many providers does the Minister anticipate will be offering plans by the end of the year?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right that the number of companies that are able to offer finance is key. I am extremely encouraged that four companies are already writing plans. The Green Deal Finance Company anticipates that another eight companies will start this month and that a further 20 will begin to write plans by the end of July. We think that about 50-plus companies will offer finance by the end of the year. Ultimately, when to start writing plans is a commercial decision for each company because the green deal is primarily a private sector market that is being created by this Government.

Shale Gas

Marcus Jones: What progress the Government has made on facilitating exploration of UK shale gas reserves.

Michael Fallon: We have strengthened the regulatory framework to protect the environment and to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is done properly and safely. We want to encourage shale exploration. That is why we have announced fiscal incentives for developers and why we are working on a package of community benefits, such as discounts on bills for residents in drilling areas.

Marcus Jones: Given today’s announcement about community benefits for onshore wind, will my right hon. Friend elaborate on what community benefits the communities that host shale gas reserves may expect if such exploration goes ahead?

Michael Fallon: We are discussing that matter with the industry and will consult on more specific proposals shortly. It is important that residents who suffer disruption in areas where there is drilling see benefits from it, either for their local community through grants or expenditure, or, better still, through discounts on their bills, which could be significant.

Home Energy Efficiency (Milton Keynes)

Iain Stewart: When he next plans to visit home energy efficiency schemes in Milton Keynes.

Gregory Barker: I was delighted to visit Milton Keynes in July last year, when I was pleased to launch new guidance for local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and to visit, with my hon. Friend, the Lakes estate retrofit project, which is improving homes and cutting energy bills for his constituents.

Iain Stewart: As part of the pioneer places project in Milton Keynes, the National Energy Foundation has engaged with 30 local traders to promote the benefits of becoming green deal installers. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to roll out that scheme nationally?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend has done a huge amount in the Milton Keynes area to work with small and medium-sized enterprises and traders in the supply chain. Nationally, we have provided more than £2 million to support the training of 1,000 go-early green deal assessors and 1,000 advisers as part of our support for the developing market. Since last autumn, DECC has organised a series of 12 roadshows, which have reached more than 1,600 companies across the country. My team has worked most recently with Energy UK to deliver a further regional roadshow programme. It is early days for the green deal, but the prospects are exciting.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister agree to my hon. Friend’s request to go to Milton Keynes, because he could then pop down the road to Wellingborough to meet councillors and constituents who are worried about applications for wind farms that, although not in the constituency, would affect them? That would be a great opportunity to explain our new policy.

Gregory Barker: I would be delighted to return to Milton Keynes, and to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), particularly if there is an opportunity to compare notes with Mrs Bone.

Off Grid Gas

Guy Opperman: With reference to the findings of the all-party parliamentary group on off-gas grid, what plans he has to help residents living off the gas grid.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the all-party group on off-gas grid for its informative report. I chaired a round table in May with colleagues from that group,
	consumer groups, local government and industry, as a result of which a better consumer code of practice is being circulated by the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers. Fuel Poverty Action is developing recommendations on information sharing and vulnerable customers, and Ofgem is considering connecting electricity and gas priority service registers to other markets, including heating oil.

Guy Opperman: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the developments that have been made as the all-party group continues its good work. Will the Minister review the progress that has been made and meet the group again so that further representations can be made and we keep the providers of that type of power up to speed?

Michael Fallon: I reassure my hon. Friend that the round table I was privileged to chair was not a one-off event and I shall be organising a further meeting on 11 September to chase up progress. I am happy to meet specifically the all-party group, as well as continuing to chair the round table.
	Topical Questions

Tom Blenkinsop: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: Since my Department’s last question time, the remaining stages of the Energy Bill have been completed and approved by this House by 396 votes to 8. The Bill has been introduced into the other place as we make further progress to build the world’s first ever low-carbon electricity market.
	For consumers, I published the Government’s response to the discussion document, “Ensuring a better deal for energy consumers”, which confirmed the Government’s backing for Ofgem’s market reforms that are designed to improve competition in retail markets and help consumers. Today, along with the Department for Communities and Local Government, we have published the Government’s decisions on onshore wind to give communities a greater say, setting out an industry-proposed fivefold increase in benefits for communities in England, and keeping financial support for onshore wind at the rate of 0.9 renewables obligation certificates.

Tom Blenkinsop: Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland has more than 7,000 households living in fuel poverty, and since this Government came to power the energy bill of the average family has leapt by more than £300 a year. Will the Minister please tell the House why the Government have halved support for people in fuel poverty while giving millionaires a tax break?

Edward Davey: We have not halved fuel support and will increase it over the lifetime of the spending review. We are changing and reforming it to ensure that it is more effective, which the hon. Gentleman ought to support.

Chris White: One way we can reduce the cost of heating and carbon emissions is through the use of biomass boilers, which can save households hundreds of pounds each
	year. The Government have a target of installing 1 million biomass boilers in the UK by 2030, but some are concerned that the target might not be met. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to achieve the target, and meet businesses such as Baxi UK in my constituency to discuss the issue?

Gregory Barker: I know that my hon. Friend does a huge amount for businesses in his constituency, and I would be happy to meet him, Baxi UK, and representatives of the industry in my Department. The coalition Government are committed to delivering not just cheaper bills but cleaner energy, and biomass boilers are part of that strategy. The good news is that we have recently announced that renewable heat payment vouchers for biomass will increase to £2,000 until March 2014, and later this summer we will provide details for the scheme that we will be launching for domestic renewable heat initiatives next spring.

Caroline Flint: Apparently, more than 5 million homes could still benefit from cavity wall insulation, so there is still a lot of work that could be done.
	The Government have claimed it is too early to set a decarbonisation target for 2030, but next month they will publish their electricity market reform delivery plan, which will determine our energy mix and its carbon intensity. In the absence of a legally binding decarbonisation target, will the Secretary of State at least confirm that his long overdue delivery plan will be in line with our legally binding carbon budgets, or will the Government be rewriting the fourth carbon budget?

Edward Davey: No, the plan will be in line with our legally binding obligations. As I have explained to the House, before we set the decarbonisation target in 2016 we will give National Grid guidance on setting the EMR delivery plan to ensure that it is on path to meet our decarbonisation targets in the least-cost way.

Mark Spencer: The Minister will be aware that I represent Thoresby colliery in my constituency, one of the most efficient and profitable pits in the country. Is he optimistic for the future of coal mining in Nottinghamshire, and does he remember my invitation to visit?

Michael Fallon: I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. He will know that deep-mine coal in this country has suffered a number of setbacks this year, including the serious fire at Daw Mill colliery. I assure him that my officials continue to work with the company to do our best to ensure its continued viability. We are also in touch with the situation in Scotland to ensure that everything possible can be done to replace some of the jobs that were lost when the company there went into liquidation.

Sheila Gilmore: On some energy issues, such as setting a date for a decarbonisation target, the Government appear to be extremely slow, but on others, such as the exploitation of shale gas, they want to rush ahead at great speed without looking at environmental and safety considerations.
	Will the Secretary of State commit to looking properly at those considerations before any extraction takes place?

Edward Davey: In 2016, we will be the first country to set a decarbonisation target, so the idea that we are being slow on that is preposterous. On shale gas, we are behind other countries—she may have noticed that the US has already gone into it. We are determined to see whether this country can benefit from shale gas, but we will ensure that we protect the environment and take the public with us. That is the right way to get the benefits for the country that shale gas might well offer.

Glyn Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today’s announcement that local opinion will no longer be trumped at the planning stage by national policy. However, everyone in my constituency wants to know whether that applies to the six large wind farm applications, over which planning power is not devolved, and which are currently being heard at the UK’s largest ever public inquiry, which started yesterday. Everybody in my constituency is desperate to know whether those applications are subject to the new policy.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will know that the public inquiry has started, and that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to comment on it. I am sorry, but I cannot give him the answer he looks for.

Katy Clark: Will the Secretary of State explain why, at the same time as energy bills are soaring, research from Energy Bill Revolution and the Association for the Conservation of Energy shows that help for people most in need is falling?

Edward Davey: I have not seen the research to which the hon. Lady refers. Given that we have introduced the warm home discount, which targets some of the poorest households in our country, taking £130 directly of their bills, I would be surprised by such findings. I reassure her and the House that the Government are not complacent on the challenge of fuel poverty. We know we need to do as much as possible, which is why we commissioned Professor Hills, why we consulted on many of his proposals, and why we will respond. We will shortly produce a framework on fuel poverty and produce a strategy by the end of the year. The Government believe that that should be a high priority.

Dominic Raab: When will the British Geological Survey review of shale gas reserves be published? Given that IGas recently found that there are 20 times the previous estimates of reserves, does the Minister agree that shale represents a major strategic advantage for Britain, in meeting energy demand and decarbonisation?

Michael Fallon: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the BGS report will be published before the summer recess. There have been a number of optimistic estimates of the amount of shale in the UK. Shale clearly has enormous potential. It would therefore be irresponsible of us not to encourage exploration to see exactly what is down there.

Alex Cunningham: The Teesside Low Carbon consortium, comprising some of the country’s top companies and experts, was rightly disappointed when its innovative project for capturing and storing the carbon created by our energy intensive industries was rejected by the Government. We know that the project is on the reserve list, but is there any real hope that the project, which would take huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, and which has the potential to drive thousands of jobs in an area where unemployment is as high as 10%, will receive financial and other support from the Government to make it a reality?

Michael Fallon: Let me be clear: this project was not rejected but placed on the reserve list. We are working with our two preferred bidders to take forward the carbon capture and storage competition. Should one of the two bidders drop out, we will of course look again at the situation.

Nigel Adams: Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), Kellingley colliery in my constituency is a profitable, high-performing deep coal mine with 700 highly skilled employees. Will the Minister update the House on what is being done to ensure its viability?

Michael Fallon: I think my hon. Friend knows that we have been working flat out to help the company to restructure since the fire at Daw Mill. That has involved intensive work with a number of other Government bodies. I understand how frustrating it is for him and, in particular, for those who work in the colliery not to have had an announcement yet, but I am hopeful that we will see progress in the next few days.

John Cryer: Further to that question, the Minister will know that UK Coal has applied for a loan from the Government that would be paid back when the insurance comes through from the Daw Mill fire. What is happening with that loan?

Michael Fallon: The position is that insurance payments are now coming through to the company, so the financial situation is not quite as the hon. Gentleman describes it. I want to assure him that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to safeguard the financial future of the two collieries, and to assist the company in necessary restructuring following the disastrous fire at Daw Mill earlier this year.

Tessa Munt: Many village halls, such as the one in East Brent in my patch, have applied for Big Lottery awards for all funding to install PV solar panels and use feed-in tariffs as an invaluable source of income to make repayments on loans to complete their projects. It is a feature of the lottery that it is funded not by Government but by individuals, and that that grant funding is made completely independent of government, as is stated on its website and in its literature. Ofgem seems to have decided in February 2013 that lottery funding is—

Mr Speaker: Order. It is my ambition in this Parliament to educate the hon. Lady that the second sentence should usually end with a question mark. That is what we want.

Tessa Munt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ofgem has decided that this is state aid—[Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: It’s not working.

Tessa Munt: It is, Sir. I must explain myself. Will the Secretary of State investigate Ofgem’s administration of the scheme and the lack of information provided to everybody involved, so that it reverses its decision to categorise lottery money as state aid?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for her constituents in villages, helping them with community halls and so on. I am aware of this issue—it is not just grants from the lottery, but grants from elsewhere in government that prevent installation of micro-technology receiving feed-in tariffs under the Ofgem scheme. This matter has been raised by a number of hon. Members and I hope we are able look at it in due course.

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State does not have to compete with Back Benchers. There is no obligation for the answer to be as long as the question.

Andrew Gwynne: Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the Government’s policies would result in energy bills being about 7% lower, but is that not correct only if people go out and buy new energy-efficient TVs, washing machines, dishwashers and combi gas boilers, and that if people do not their bills will actually be higher under this Government?

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The methodology of the bills and prices report includes examining how often average households replace these types of goods—it is statistically robust.

Julian Smith: I thank the Government for listening on wind. Communities across north Yorkshire will be delighted by this decision. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is already popular in north Yorkshire, but I am sure that they would join me in wanting to give him a collective hug to thank him for this decision.

Michael Fallon: I am married to a girl from Yorkshire, but I think that a further hug would probably not be appropriate.
	It is important that communities understand that they will now have more say against developments that are inappropriate and not properly justified. Too many communities have felt under siege from wholly inappropriate applications, and this measure will now bring them much-needed and long-awaited relief.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister referred to the coal industry in Scotland. I am sure he knows of the devastation in my constituency and in that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). What recent discussions have taken place with the Scottish Government to address the serious environmental consequences of restoration work not going ahead?

Michael Fallon: We are in touch with the Scottish Government. I have ensured that an official from my Department attends meetings of the taskforce set up following the collapse of the Scottish company. We will learn lessons from what has happened in Scotland, and if the British Government can help, of course we will.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my right hon. Friend explain what role he sees the energy efficiency strategy playing in reducing demand for energy?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend will know that earlier this year the Prime Minister launched our first-ever national energy efficiency mission. We are determined always to pursue the cheapest option, including where the cheapest option is saving energy rather than building new plant, but we will do that in a way that is good for consumers and gives us lower bills as well as cleaner energy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. If we are to accommodate the several remaining colleagues, very short answers will be required.

Derek Twigg: Will the Secretary of State have another go at answering my earlier question? He said he met the energy companies last month. Let me put the question this way: when he met them, did he raise any concerns about the level of profits they were making, and, if so, what did they say?

Edward Davey: I do not think that profits were part of a specific conversation. This issue is about the whole market: how we ensure more competition and more investment and how we protect consumers from rising global prices by ensuring that they help us deal with energy efficiency.

Peter Bone: In order to save money and improve Government efficiency, would the excellent Secretary of State agree to close his Department and transfer its responsibilities to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? He, then, could become the Business Secretary, freeing up the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), to concentrate on his campaign to become the next leader of the Liberal Democrats. It would be a win, win situation for everyone.

Edward Davey: You will know, Mr Speaker, that the Liberal Democrats always listen to the hon. Gentleman’s advice, because it is always meant as a helpful contribution. I can tell him, however, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) is a fantastic
	Minister of State and does a brilliant job not only in my Department, but in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so we are already very well connected.

Diana Johnson: The Secretary of State told me earlier that he was concerned about all Kingstons in this country. On that basis, would he agree to meet me and a delegation from Kingston upon Hull to discuss what more the coalition Government can do to support Siemens coming to Hull?

Edward Davey: Yes.

Duncan Hames: I welcome the Minister’s support for biomass boilers, but the renewable heat incentive was announced in October 2010. Why is it not possible to open up the domestic scheme for payment before spring 2014?

Gregory Barker: It has been much more challenging than we anticipated, not least because when we entered government we found that the previous Government had done absolutely no work on this whatsoever. This is the first renewable heat scheme of its type in the world, and heat is much more difficult to quantify and value than exporting electricity, but it is good news. We prioritised industrial heat and are now moving on to domestic heat, and I am looking forward to the scheme’s launch this spring.

Julie Hilling: The Minister claims that the energy company obligation will help people in fuel poverty, but is it not true that nearly 60% of the funding will go to households that can already afford to pay, not to those people in fuel poverty?

Gregory Barker: It is anticipated that more than £500 million of the ECO funding will go directly to the most vulnerable and those who need it most, but the balance of the energy company obligation is intended to support roll-outs street by street. It was the specific nature of previous Government schemes under Labour that made them so bureaucratic and ineffective. Our view is that we ultimately need to focus on properties, not just the individuals who live in them.

Anne McIntosh: The co-firing of biomass at power stations such as Drax brings enormous opportunities to growers and farmers in Thirsk and Malton, but will the Minister or Secretary of State assure the House that unfair subsidies to imported wood chip are not undermining our home-grown produce?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady will know that our schemes apply to all companies, wherever they are from. We need to ensure that we invest in renewables such as biomass, but in a way that meets our sustainability criteria and creates a proper, fair market.

Onshore Wind (Planning Policy)

Chris Heaton-Harris: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Housing if he will make a statement on planning policy in relation to onshore wind.

Mark Prisk: The coalition agreement pledged to decentralise power to local people. We are committed to giving local people far more ability to shape the places in which they live. Through a series of reforms, this coalition Government are making the planning process more accessible to local communities. Planning works best when communities themselves have the opportunity to influence the decisions that affect their lives. However, current planning decisions on onshore wind do not always reflect a locally led planning system.
	Following a wide range of representations, including the letter of 30 January 2012 to the Prime Minister from 100 hon. Members, and in light of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s call for evidence, it has become clear that action is needed to deliver the balance expected by the national planning policy framework. We need to ensure that protecting the local environment is properly considered alongside the broader issues of protecting the global environment. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has published the response to his call for evidence on onshore wind and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is publishing a written ministerial statement that will set out a number of key changes that I know the House will wish to consider. Let me set out the key elements for the benefit of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris).
	First, we want to strengthen the voice of local people. The submissions to the call for evidence have highlighted the benefits of good quality pre-application discussions for onshore wind development and the improved outcomes they can have for local communities. We will amend secondary legislation to make pre-application consultation with local communities compulsory for the more significant onshore wind applications. This will ensure that community engagement takes place at an earlier stage and may assist in improving the quality of proposed onshore wind development. It will also complement the community benefits proposals announced by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
	Secondly, on better planning guidance, the national planning policy framework we published last year includes strong protections for the natural and historic environment. However, I know that local communities have genuine concerns that insufficient weight is being given to environmental considerations such as landscape, amenity or heritage. We need to ensure that decisions get the environmental balance right, in line with the framework, and that any adverse impact from a wind farm development is addressed satisfactorily.
	We have been equally clear that this means facilitating sustainable development in suitable locations. Put simply, meeting our energy goals should not be used to justify the wrong development in the wrong location. We are looking to local councils to include in their local plans
	policies that ensure that adverse impacts from wind farm developments, including cumulative landscape and visual impact, are addressed satisfactorily. Where councils have identified areas suitable for onshore wind, they should not feel they have to give permission for speculative applications outside those areas when they judge the impact to be unacceptable.
	To help to ensure that planning decisions reflect the balance in the framework, my Department will shortly issue new planning practice guidance to assist local councils and planning inspectors in their consideration of local plans and individual applications. Briefly, the guidance will set out, first, that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. Secondly, decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the increasing impact on the landscape and local amenity. Thirdly, local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact on the landscape. Fourthly, great care should be taken to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting.
	We will be writing to the Planning Inspectorate and to all councils to flag up the new guidance and its operation. This Government firmly believe that renewables have an important role to play in a balanced energy policy. However, as a localist Government, we also firmly believe that planning works best when local people are able to shape their local environment.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I should like to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I thank the Minister for his reply, but it is a shame that this was not announced to the House first. Should the Department of Energy and Climate Change have been briefing the media on this announcement 24 hours before it was announced in this place, especially when its planning element comes from the Department for Communities and Local Government and is time-sensitive and commercially significant? What will be the impact of the policy change on proposed developments that are currently in the planning process, particularly those that are in the planning appeals system and whose appeal has been concluded but the result is not yet known? Will the proposed change be retrospective for schemes that have been granted planning permission against the wishes of the local communities or councils, but whose construction has not yet started?
	For too long, developers have ridden roughshod over the views of local communities and local councils on inappropriately sited wind turbines. Can the Minister elaborate on how the new policy will be communicated to the Planning Inspectorate and local planning authorities, and on the timeline that will be involved?
	There might have been some confusion within Government Departments about these matters, but I wholeheartedly welcome the planning changes. I really believe that this could be the beginning of the end of unwanted onshore wind farm development in England, and I welcome the Minister’s statement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. This policy announcement should of course first have been made in this Chamber through an oral statement offered by the Government. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that it was precisely because that offer was not made, which it should have been, that I granted the urgent question from the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). We look forward of course to the Minister’s reply.

Mark Prisk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The two written ministerial statements are important, but the Government will always note what you have to say on these matters. That is important in this regard.
	I welcome my hon. Friend’s wholehearted support for these important changes. I know that he has been an ardent campaigner on these matters, and I very much respect that. It is important that constituency Members of Parliament should feel able to do that. He asked which proposals would be affected by the changes. I must be careful not to mention any specific named applications, but when something has been determined at local level, we clearly cannot reopen it. The changes will not be retrospective. When something is in the planning application system but no decision has been made, local planners and the planning inspectors will now have to give clear consideration—as they would in any other circumstances—to this guidance. That will give comfort not only to Members of the House but to many of the constituents they represent.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. Once again we have had to learn the details of a Government policy from the press rather than from a statement to the House.
	We know that planning approvals for wind farms in England have fallen from about 70% of applications in 2008 to 35% in 2012, which raises the question of why this guidance is being introduced now. We accept that there are clearly locations in which it is inappropriate to put wind turbines, and we welcome the greater incentives that will be provided to local communities that accept wind farm developments. Pre-application discussions with communities are clearly a good thing, and should be happening in any case, but can the Minister tell us what the threshold will be for the more significant applications that will trigger compulsory consultation, and do the Government intend to make the same changes for fracking planning applications?
	It has been reported that local communities will, in effect, be given a veto over new wind farm planning applications. A senior Conservative source is quoted in the newspapers as saying:
	“This is a bomb proof set of safeguards”.
	That is not, however, what it says in the written ministerial statement, and neither did the Minister say that in his reply. Can he therefore tell us what will in fact be the case? Will there be a veto: yes or no? If so, how exactly will this power of veto operate?
	Reference has also been made to significant local opposition. How will this be assessed and who will decide whether it is significant? Will local authorities still finally determine the planning applications? What will be the position in local communities where a local plan has not yet been drawn up or approved by the Planning Inspectorate?
	Do the Government have any plans to change the process for deciding on planning applications for wind farms generating more than 50 MW?
	As we know, onshore wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy, so what assessment have the Government made of the likely impact of these changes on our carbon budgets and on the cost of electricity for consumers in general?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Lady raised a number of points, and she will forgive me if I say that the details on carbon emissions are not within the bounds of the planning decision, which is what this urgent question is about.
	Let me deal with two particular issues that the hon. Lady raised. She rightly raised the question of what a “more significant” development is. This will depend on a number of issues. As hon. Members may understand, it may be about the scale and number of turbines, but it could also be about the height, size and massing of them. Clearly, we do not want to ensnare someone who is thinking of having a small turbine in the back garden. That is not the purpose of the approach; this will be set out clearly in the secondary legislation.
	The hon. Lady then raised a broader point about retrospectivity. She did so quite imaginatively, I thought, in a number of different ways. Perhaps I can reiterate the point. Where a determination has been made, there will not be a retrospective change, but where an application is in the system, we expect the local planning officers and, if the case is in appeal, the inspectors themselves to give clear and careful consideration to the issue, in the knowledge that it has the potential to be a “material consideration”, which she will obviously understand has a legal implication as well.
	The purpose behind this approach is very clear, but I am not sure that the hon. Lady was. We believe in making sure that local communities have a clear voice, and we want the balance between the global environmental issues and the local environmental issues to be made clear. The policy has been clear; sadly, as many hon. Members have found, it has not been applied appropriately on the ground. We intend to make sure that planning inspectors and the planners themselves on the ground are able to do so.

Christopher Chope: In congratulating my hon. Friend on this statement, may I ask whether he will extend the principles he has enunciated to offshore wind farms, where exactly the same principles apply, particularly in the case of the much-despised proposal for an offshore wind farm in Christchurch bay?

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend is always adept at tempting Ministers, but I think I shall keep my feet on dry land.

Clive Betts: May I return to a point the Minister did not answer a minute ago? Will he confirm that this change does not give a veto to local authorities and local communities over all wind farm applications? Will he confirm that what he has done is to put into the guidance matters to which the local authorities will now have to have regard in considering applications? These are in fact matters to
	which local authorities currently can have regard, and to which the best local authorities will already have regard?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that the policy has not changed. The frustration that many Members have experienced is about the way in which it has been applied at a local level. He is right to say that we are now making sure that these matters are dealt with in the appropriate fashion at the local level. These will now be material considerations, which is an important aspect. The policy has been clear. The sad part, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, is that the application has been inconsistent. That problem will now be solved.

Alan Beith: Is the Minister aware that the beautiful county of Northumberland has a large number of wind farm applications, and that there will be a welcome for this coalition Government’s recognition that visual and cumulative impact should be more effectively recognised in the system and that communities where appropriately sited wind farms are built should get a greater benefit from that?

Mark Prisk: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have often felt that issues of amenity and landscape are things that people do care about in terms of their environmental considerations. This guidance will help to ensure that the balance is right now.

Geraint Davies: The Minister has not made it clear whether this will apply in Wales and England. Irrespective of that, will he confirm that it will mean more wind farms in urban areas and fewer in rural areas, and that more electricity will therefore be generated in Labour constituencies for Conservative constituencies, with the Liberals blowing in the wind, as normal?

Mark Prisk: No, it does not apply to Wales and no, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Philip Hollobone: The borough of Kettering is enthusiastic about its successful and expanding wind farm at Burton Wold, but we do not want wind turbines all over the countryside. Can the Minister assure my constituents that they can use the very good example of that wind farm to protect against the spread of wind turbines everywhere else?

Mark Prisk: That is the thing that people feel; the cumulative issue is often the concern that local communities have. That is why this guidance will strengthen the arm to make sure that it is a genuine material consideration. People will now feel that they are to contribute to the planning process, and that is good for the process itself.

John Woodcock: So there is still no veto?

Mark Prisk: There seems to be a lack of understanding among Labour Members. This is not about vetoes; it is about making sure, in a legal system, that we have appropriate and due consideration of the material issues—topography, amenity and heritage. On this idea that we
	have a blanket veto here at the Dispatch Box, I know that that is how they liked to do it in the Labour party in the past, but we let local people decide.

Gerald Howarth: While I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, as I am sure most of my colleagues do, may I just point out to him that it contains no reference to general aviation and the Ministry of Defence, both of which have enormous concerns about the impact of wind farms? May I give just one example? As one of the few currently licensed aviators in this House, I was flying on Monday past Popham, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), where there is a huge concern about 22 wind turbines, each the height of the London Eye, and the massive impact they can have on general aviation. May I ask the Minister to take into account those concerns, which are certainly shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Winchester (Steve Brine)?

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and we do need to consider that issue, although of course what he is referring to is strictly outside the nature of this statement. Perhaps I, or indeed the Secretary of State, might like to take a flight with him to see this directly.

Cathy Jamieson: I realise that the announcement on the planning changes refers to England, but given that the Government appear to have had time to brief the media, did they also have time to discuss any of this with the Scottish Government, as there will be concerns that it will perhaps be tougher to obtain planning permission in England and that that will have knock-on consequences in Scotland?

Mark Prisk: Clearly this is a devolved matter, but if the hon. Lady is directly concerned, she needs to talk to the Scottish Government, as we are already doing.

Mark Spencer: I have tried to push the Minister on this important issue, but will he just clarify whether the current applications at judicial review are included in the change in guidance?

Mark Prisk: The key point is that if a determination has been made, that cannot be undone, whether that is at the local level or at the planning level, and that, I think, incorporates any other aspect where there is a decision about this. Once a decision has been published, that clearly cannot be changed by this guidance.

Phil Wilson: E.ON wants to build a wind farm consisting of 25 wind turbines in the middle of my constituency, generating 64 MW of electricity, which is therefore over the 50 MW threshold. The final decision will be made by the Secretary of State. Does this announcement today mean that if the local planning authority is opposed and the local community is opposed, the Secretary of State will say no to it?

Mark Prisk: It is cute of the hon. Gentleman to try to tempt me into that area. He knows that these are quasi-legal decisions, and I am not going to comment on any individual application. What we have done
	today is make sure that the balance in discussions is correct at the local level and at the appeal level, so that there is an appropriate level of decision making. I am not going to be drawn into individual applications, as he will understand.

Philip Davies: I welcome what the Minister has said—as, I am sure, will many of my constituents, particularly those in Denholme who have been battling against a wholly inappropriate proposal for a wind farm—but can he tell us what safeguards will be provided for local residents? My constituents have become accustomed to Labour-run Bradford council’s practice of sending its councillors over to parts of the constituency, riding roughshod over the wishes of local councillors and residents, and imposing unpopular decisions on them. What safeguards will be introduced to stop Labour councils such as Bradford imposing decisions on my constituents, contrary to the recommendations of the guidance?

Mark Prisk: Our key purpose in making these changes is to ensure that the voice of local people is stronger. My hon. Friend is evidently experiencing a difficulty with the local Labour council, which I must say does sound shocking, but I am sure that, in his usual terrier-like manner, he will ensure that it understands what it is doing wrong.

Valerie Vaz: Whether we are talking about a change of policy or a change of guidance, will the Minister tell us what prior consultation he has had with local planning authorities?

Mark Prisk: The call for evidence produced responses relating to some 1,100 applications, in respect of both the planning and the energy aspects. Those responses have been very useful, and have come from all the parties to whom the hon. Lady has referred.

Julian Sturdy: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. In my constituency, the council’s draft local plan proposes the development of 40 new wind farm sites on green belt land. What message would my hon. Friend send to a council which is intending to impose those sites, in environmentally sensitive areas, on local communities that are deeply opposed to them?

Mark Prisk: I think the message would be that the Government have listened carefully to what local people say about the way in which planning has been applied and why they are concerned about it. We want to ensure that their voice is clear and loud and listened to.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that today’s announcement is a further demonstration of the Government’s commitment to the principles of localism in planning, which—starting with neighbourhood plans—ensure that local communities have a greater say both when supporting and when opposing development in their areas?

Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State and I are strongly committed to ensuring that local voices are heard in the planning system. This is a legal process, and we need to
	ensure that it is conducted appropriately, but as my hon. Friend says, we are a localist Government with clear localist principles.

Jason McCartney: There is an increasing perception among many people who have opposed wind turbine applications in my beautiful part of Yorkshire that local wishes have been overruled in favour of energy suppliers and landowners who have been pocketing the subsidies. Does the Minister agree that if such applications are to be approved, they must have the support of those local communities and they must benefit those local communities?

Mark Prisk: I know that my hon. Friend is an ardent campaigner on this issue, and his constituents are fortunate in that regard. He is right: we must ensure that local voices are very clear so that proper, balanced decisions are made, and people are not made to feel that their own considerations have been ridden over roughshod.

Tobias Ellwood: I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that there is a logic to extending community powers relating to onshore to offshore wind farms. As the Minister knows, there is a plan to build a rather large wind farm off our constituencies, and its proximity to the coast is concerning residents.

Mark Prisk: I understand that. My hon. Friend is another powerful campaigner, and I think it important for his campaign to continue. However, as I said earlier, I think it wiser for me to keep my feet on dry ground.

Andrew Bridgen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on his urgent question, and also on his consistent and informed leadership on this subject from the Back Benches. I welcome the announcement of a change in the planning rules relating to wind farms, but may I suggest that if one wants to look green one builds wind farms, whereas if one wants to be green, one should build them only where they will be effective and acceptable to local communities?

Mark Prisk: As I said in my statement, we have an energy issue to deal with, but renewables must be sited appropriately. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that, and we want to ensure that it happens.

Anne McIntosh: There will be joy in North Yorkshire at this decision, which will be good for the environment and good for the countryside, but may I tempt my hon. Friend to specify the more significant onshore wind farm developments, and explain how that term will be interpreted?

Mark Prisk: I am delighted to be tempted by my hon. Friend, and as I said earlier, what is more significant is trying to make sure we do not unintentionally snare the small single turbine in someone’s back garden. This is about making sure we have consideration about the massing, the size and, indeed, the height, and we will set that out clearly in the secondary legislation.

Annette Brooke: I find myself much in accord with the Minister’s expressions of support for balance, as that is absolutely right, but I have some concerns that the pendulum might swing too far the other way. Will he be carefully monitoring things as the new guidance is implemented?

Mark Prisk: I will certainly monitor where the pendulum sits with the greatest of care.

Stephen Barclay: In joining colleagues in welcoming the announcement, may I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) on this issue?
	May I push the Minister to be clear that where an appeal has concluded taking evidence but the inspector has not published their decision, today’s announcement will be taken into account, because that will give great comfort to my constituents, particularly those in Tydd St Giles, who are awaiting a decision on 17 July?

Mark Prisk: Where no decision has been published, as would be the case for local planners at that stage in the process, planning inspectors will now have to give consideration to this change in the guidance.

David Nuttall: My constituents in Bury North will warmly welcome this statement. Many of them can already see a massive wind farm development over at Scout Moor, but it is very often the individual turbines going here, there and everywhere across my constituency that create a great deal of concern. Can the Minister confirm that these guidelines will apply to individual turbine applications, as well as those for large farms, which may already be affecting the landscape?

Mark Prisk: As I said earlier, we are trying to make sure that the principal concern people have about the impact, and particularly the cumulative impact, is properly and clearly set out in the guidance. That will make sure that decisions on the kinds of application to which my hon. Friend refers will be influenced in the same way.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on leading the campaign against wind farms in this House, and I have a sneaking feeling that I can detect the hand of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) in this new revised policy.
	Until now, planning applications were refused for wind farms, but on appeal were granted. Under this new guidance, as I understand it, if local councils act properly and say no to a wind farm, normally they will not be overturned on appeal. Am I right in thinking that?

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that there have been a number of contributions in this particular debate. What I would say to him is that we want to make sure the system is balanced. What most constituents have been concerned about—I am, perhaps, speaking now as a constituency MP—is that they feel
	their views are ridden roughshod over. That is what my hon. Friend referred to, and that is what we are seeking to correct.

Duncan Hames: I note the Minister’s emphasis on significant and cumulative impact. Does he agree that minimum separation distances, as espoused by Wiltshire council, are arbitrary and therefore totally incapable of taking that into account?

Mark Prisk: We are not promoting buffer zones, as I think they are known in that context. We are a localist Government, and we want to make sure that the councils, which are accountable to their local electorates, take the appropriate decisions. The fact that we have specifically highlighted the issue of cumulative impact can, I think, give my hon. Friend some reassurance.

Andrew Percy: In addition to the turbines we already have, sometimes turning, in my constituency, we have 70 further ones consented, the largest development being for 34 turbines on the Isle of Axholme, which was granted by the previous Government on appeal, against the wishes of local people. Just yesterday another wind farm application was rejected, and a couple of weeks ago I spoke at an appeal against yet another wind farm application. Therefore, while I welcome the announcement, as will my constituents, may I urge the Minister to do a full and thorough review of how the appeal system works, because it is often at that point that my constituents are let down, not by their democratically elected councillors?

Mark Prisk: I understand that point, and the Secretary of State, the planning Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and I are all very much aware of the need to make sure planning at the local level and at appeals runs appropriately, and we will always give consideration to representations.

Andrew Jones: I welcome the statement, which will also be welcomed by the constituents of Harrogate and Knaresborough, where there have been significant concerns about developments of a proposed wind farm along the Knabs ridge area. Does the Minister agree that the measures announced will help to address the confusion and anger about the fact that local landscapes and local environments can be damaged in the name of protecting our environment?

Mark Prisk: I know that my hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for local people in his glorious part of Yorkshire. I think he is absolutely right and he can now say to his constituents that this is a Government who are on their side.

Guy Opperman: This is wonderful news and the result of a long campaign. I welcome the announcement, because in Northumberland we have sporadic applications and sporadic wind farms that have no impact other than destroying the landscape in a very bad way. Cumulative impact is a massive issue, but how will it go into a local development plan when a local authority has not completed a local development plan thus far?

Mark Prisk: As I said in my opening remarks, we want to ensure that the guidance, as part of the balancing of the new planning policy framework, shows a clear understanding of the issue, especially the cumulative impact, and that that is reflected in the policies in the local plan.

Glyn Davies: I congratulate the Minister on today’s statement and associate myself with those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on the leadership he has shown on this issue.
	I would like some clarity if possible from the Minister about the position as it affects Wales. Applications for large wind farms over 50 MW are not devolved to the Welsh Government. It seems logical that the new provisions should apply to those applications, so can he reassure me that that is the case?

Mark Prisk: As I think you will know, Mr Speaker, the process relates to England only. There is a sensitive legal issue, to which my hon. Friend refers, but I understand that the Secretary of State for Wales is attuned to that and is in contact with the Welsh Government.

Julian Smith: Does the Minister agree that today is a victory for the Conservative party, which has finally brought some sanity and good sense to a very dubious energy policy?

Mark Prisk: The sad part about this has been that the Labour party seems not to have any understanding of why local voices matter. Members of this House have raised local issues time and again, and I agree with my hon. Friend; this is about localism and giving power back to local people, and we will ensure that that happens.

Martin Vickers: The Minister’s announcement will be widely welcomed by my constituents, particularly those in Humberston who are fighting an application in the neighbouring constituency. With particular reference to pre-application consultation, and because of the widespread impact such turbines have,
	can he assure me that a consultation area will cover neighbouring council areas so that everyone can be involved?

Mark Prisk: It is important that a wide range of local voices are involved, but clearly those matters and where the boundaries must lie in any individual application are a matter not for central Government but for local government.

Nigel Adams: People in my part of North Yorkshire will be thrilled with the announcement this morning. May I add my gratitude to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for championing these changes? Will the Minister assure the House that local councils will be given the correct level of support to implement the changes? They often come up against very clever and expensive lawyers from development companies and need far better support.

Mark Prisk: We will write to all local planning authorities and to Sir Michael Pitt at the Planning Inspectorate. I take my hon. Friend’s point and I know that the issue is foremost in the mind of the Secretary of State. May I add my strong congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)? We have listened and we have improved the guidance for the better.

Tessa Munt: The Minister mentioned specifically that meeting our energy goals should not mean overriding natural environment considerations. Will he confirm that he will include in his amendment to the legislation the higher planning authorities that will make judgments about equally ugly pylons and the need to underground electricity transmission lines across the beautiful Somerset levels?

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. Today, clearly, we are considering the question of onshore wind turbines, so I think it would be wiser if I did not draw myself into the even more vexed question of pylons. I know that the Secretary of State and I will consider her question should it have any due implications.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 10 June—Second Reading of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
	Tuesday 11 June—Remaining stages of the Children and Families Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to section 10 of the European Union Act 2011.
	Wednesday 12 June—Opposition day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 13 June—Debate on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the Prime Minister of Canada will address both Houses of Parliament on this day.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 17 June will include:
	Monday 17 June—Second Reading of the Pensions Bill.
	Tuesday 18 June—Motion to approve a European document relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to enhanced co-operation and a financial transaction tax, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the European elections 2014.
	Wednesday 19 June—Opposition day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 20 June—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 June will be:
	Thursday 13 June—Debate on the seventh report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee on dog control and welfare.

Angela Eagle: This week marks the 100th anniversary of the death of suffragette Emily Wilding Davison, who threw herself at the King’s horse demanding votes for women. As the battle for women’s suffrage raged, she was at its forefront, being imprisoned on multiple occasions and force fed 49 times. She has a connection with this place because she hid in St Mary’s Undercroft so that she could register as a resident here for the 1911 census. She is also known for throwing things at Chancellor Lloyd George.
	Since women won the vote, just 35 have entered the Cabinet and today we make up only 23% of the House of Commons. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that, on this centenary, we should have a debate in Government time on women’s progress in the UK? Under this Government, women’s rights are going backwards: as carers, service users and public sector workers, women are bearing the brunt of Government cuts and women’s unemployment is the highest it has
	been for a generation. No wonder the Government forgot to do a gender impact assessment of their first Budget. I suggest that if Emily Wilding Davison were alive today, she would still find reasons to throw rocks at the Chancellor.
	I wonder whether the Leader of the House recalls last October’s Back-Bench business debate on the badger cull. The vote at the end of that debate instructed the Government not to proceed with the cull, but the Government just ignored it and started anyway. The Government have lost Back-Bench votes on circus animals, badgers and the Royal Fusiliers, and since starting to lose votes on Back-Bench motions so frequently, they have simply stopped opposing them. Today, we have a motion on the effects of pesticides on the bee population. Will the Leader of the House let us know whether the Government intend simply to let the motion pass without a vote, and if they do, will the will of the House be ignored again?
	The Commons is abuzz with speculation about the end of the greatest No. 10 love affair of all time. Their eyes met at a press conference in the garden and they accepted each other with open arms, but the Prime Minister was unfaithful with his Back-Bench EU deal and now the Deputy Prime Minister has gone to the papers over his child care demands. They have been kidding themselves for a while, but the Queen’s Speech showed us that they did not even have the energy to try any more. Their mouse of a legislative programme has already unravelled, with No. 10 at panic stations over another lobbying scandal, the EU Back-Bench Bill, and the third U-turn of the Session in the abandonment of the appalling plan to increase ratios for child care providers. It is hard to believe that the House has sat for only 11 days since the Queen’s Speech was unveiled.
	It is the job of the Leader of the House to co-ordinate the Government’s legislative programme. I know he likes expensive top-down reorganisations, but this is ridiculous. To be fair to him, though, it is not as if his Cabinet colleagues are faring any better. The Education Secretary has been so busy positioning himself to be the next Tory leader that he has forgotten to do the day job. According to a damning report from the Procedure Committee, his Department is very late in answering half of all written questions tabled by Members, and answers only one in five written named day questions in time. During the recess the chairman of the Tory party was told off by the UK Statistics Authority for making things up. He joins a long list of his Cabinet colleagues languishing on the statistical naughty step, including the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary. So may we have a debate about sanctions that could be applied to Ministers who do not answer questions in a timely fashion or get censured for misusing statistics?
	Perhaps we should also have a debate about performance-managing the Cabinet. Such a debate could start with a look at the NHS. Since 2010 the number of people waiting in A and E for more than four hours has doubled. The ambulance queues have doubled, but instead of taking responsibility, the Government have tried to blame immigrants, women doctors and a 10-year-old GP contract for a problem that has only just emerged. Of course, they are only following the Chancellor’s lead after he blamed the flatlining economy on the snow, the rain and various bank holidays, including the royal
	wedding and the jubilee. This Government have been in office for three years. When will they face up to their responsibilities and realise that they have only themselves to blame?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, not least for the opportunity to mark in the House the centenary, as she rightly said, of the death of Emily Wilding Davison who, on 4 June 1913 I think it was, threw herself in front of the—was it the King or the Prince of Wales?—the King’s horse at the Epsom derby. I understand that there was an extremely successful event in Westminster Hall yesterday to mark that; it is important for us to do so.
	Many would share the view that we have come on a very long way in a century, but not as far as we would like to have done, not least in ensuring that we realise to the full the potential that women are able to bring into our political life. In my party we feel strongly that we did very well at the last election in doing so, and we have further to go and I am looking forward to—

Angela Eagle: Where are they?

Andrew Lansley: Busy, I would imagine. The experience in this Parliament of increased numbers of women in the parliamentary Conservative party will have encouraged Conservative associations across the country in their selections for the future.
	The hon. Lady mentioned child care. She will be aware that no announcements have been made. We are committed to securing improving quality and affordability for parents seeking child care and we will make announcements in due course.
	The hon. Lady made a point about Back-Bench debates. She said that Back-Bench votes instructed the Government. She completely understands, I know, that they are very important opportunities for Back-Bench and House opinion to be expressed. The Government never ignore them, and particularly in relation to the debate on the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Ministers took that decision seriously, weighed it carefully and came back to the House on a further occasion in order to explain why they maintained the decision that they had made.
	Yesterday, Ministers came back to the House at the instigation of the Opposition in order to explain fully why the pilot badger cull was going ahead, and in a vote yesterday the House endorsed the Government’s view on that. In the course of her questions, including requests for debates, the shadow Leader of the House did not tell us what the Opposition are planning to do with their time.

Thomas Docherty: It is called a Business Question.

Valerie Vaz: The Leader of the House has to answer it.

Andrew Lansley: I know it is a question, but in the course of her questions the shadow Leader of the House might have indicated to the House what the subjects for the Opposition day debates next week might be, not least as
	she seems to have an idea of the issues that she regards as important. She might think, for example, that 19 June would be a good opportunity to debate tax evasion and tax avoidance in the wake of the initiative, which is, I think, unprecedented in scale and success, that the Prime Minister has led in securing international co-operation, not least through the G8 summit that will have taken place over the previous weekend. No doubt by that date there will have been an opportunity for the Labour party to have paid to the Revenue any tax that would have been due on any donations that might have been given to it.
	In the light of the speeches that have been made this week, the hon. Lady might also try to have a debate about the credibility of Opposition policy. On Monday, the shadow Chancellor was in complete denial about the simple fact that he talked with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister about “iron discipline” just ahead of the biggest spending spree by a Government that this country has ever seen, which left us in the biggest debt that this country has ever encountered. That is no iron discipline; there is no credibility in that.
	If the Opposition are going to make speeches about welfare reform, they have to answer some simple questions. To give just one example, do Labour Members now believe that they were wrong to oppose the Bill that became the Welfare Reform Act 2012, with its cap on welfare uprating for working-age benefit recipients? If the shadow Leader of the House is able to say that they were wrong about that, there might be some credibility; otherwise it was a completely empty policy.

Andrew Bridgen: Today I will be delivering a letter to the Prime Minister signed by 81 Conservative colleagues calling for a parliamentary debate and a vote before the Government make any decision to arm any factions in the Syrian conflict. There is considerable concern in this House and, indeed, the country about our being pulled further into another middle eastern conflict where there appear to be many sides but no end. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if such a decision to arm any of the groups is considered during a recess, Parliament can be quickly recalled so that we can debate this very important issue?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had the opportunity to see early-day motion 189, which relates to this.
	[That this House believes that prior to any decision being taken to supply arms to the Syrian National Coalition or any other groups in Syria, a full debate and vote should be held in Parliament and in addition to this, if Parliament is in recess, it should be recalled to facilitate this important debate; notes the division and sensitivity that this issue evokes both with colleagues and the general public; believes that it is a matter that needs to be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny and debate before the UK potentially becomes further involved in another Middle Eastern conflict; and further notes that in some matters of defence, time does not always allow for parliamentary debate, whilst not however believing this constraint applies to this potential course of action.]
	My hon. Friend will recall what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, when he was absolutely clear—in the same way that he was careful to ensure that on 21 March 2011 the House had an opportunity
	to debate Libya on a substantive motion—that any decision relating specifically to the arming of the Syrian National Coalition or others in Syria would be the subject of debate and an opportunity for a vote in this House.

Keith Vaz: In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday, Cressida Dick, the head of counter-terrorism at the Metropolitan police, told the Committee that, on one hand they were proposing to assess protection for Anjem Choudary, but on the other they were considering prosecuting him for racist and inflammatory statements. He is a former member of a number of proscribed organisations. May we have a statement on any guidance that the Home Secretary has issued about the protection of people who go out of their way to inflame tensions?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman will of course understand that I am not in a position to make any comment about any individual case. I am sure that the Home Secretary—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, she has done this before and will do so again—will keep the House fully updated about any actions she is taking relating to tackling violent extremism and tackling those who seek to propagate views promoting violent extremism and terrorism in this country.

John Leech: In the light of recent speculation that the London-based Science Museum Group could axe three regional museums, including Manchester’s Museum of Science and Industry, to protect the London Science Museum, may we have a debate on the future of funding for museums and the need to protect our regional cultural assets?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that many Members will share with him a sense of the importance of the Science Museum Group, including, in particular, the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester. The group receives over 5 million visitors a year, so it is very important. It received a real-terms reduction in its overall funding in the previous funding review and, obviously, I am not in a position to talk about any future spending review. The distribution of funding within the Science Museum Group is an operational matter for the group itself, but I will bring the point raised by my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

John Baron: May I seek absolute clarity on what the Leader of the House kindly said about a debate on arming the Syrian rebels? Are the Government committed to having a substantive debate and vote before any decision is made on whether to arm the Syrian rebels, even if Parliament is in recess at the time? Will we get that debate before any policy is implemented?

Andrew Lansley: Let me be clear: as the Prime Minister made perfectly clear yesterday, that question has not yet arisen because no such decision has been made. The Prime Minister was clear, as he was in relation to Libya, that he will seek to secure an opportunity for the House to debate and express its view through a vote on these matters. It is, of course, a hypothetical question
	at present. The Prime Minister is determined, as is the Foreign Secretary, that the House should have the opportunity, as was the case with Libya, to express its view.

John Cryer: The Deputy Prime Minister has been trailing his lobbying Bill all over the press yet again, and this time his ideas seem to be staggeringly incoherent even by his standards. It is three years since the Prime Minister’s original remarks. When will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement to the House or even present a Bill? After all, it is many months since the consultation exercise closed.

Andrew Lansley: The coalition agreement is very clear that we will introduce legislation. The Prime Minister said in response to a question yesterday that we will legislate to tackle the issue of third-party influence in our political system. We are looking to introduce proposals before the summer recess.

Alec Shelbrooke: Could we have a debate on the practices of companies such as Phyderma and Elisa Jewels, which actively seek to scam British pensioners by enticing them to purchase catalogue items with the promise that they will win prizes such as new cars and luxury holidays? I recently met a distraught constituent whose father has spent more than £5,000 to date on these false promises.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Members will sympathise with him and his constituents about these matters, which come up for many of us. Misleading or false promotional or other advertising material is covered by the advertising code of practice, which is policed by the Advertising Standards Authority, with which my hon. Friend may wish to raise these matters. Failure to comply with ASA rulings can also result in referral to the Office of Fair Trading, so that is a further avenue for him to take if he is not initially successful.

Siobhain McDonagh: May we have a debate on something that affects a large number of Members of all parties, namely the rules used by the NHS to consult on hospital closures? In my own area the “Better Services, Better Value” scheme proposes to close the A and E and maternity units at St Helier hospital after a 12-week consultation over the school summer holidays at a time when it is difficult to find venues and get people to volunteer to assist in gathering the information in order to discuss the schemes. Could that debate also include a discussion about the rules on giving notice about venues and dates for important meetings where members of the public might wish to see the NHS making decisions on its future?

Andrew Lansley: My colleagues from the Health Department will be here to answer questions on Tuesday, if the hon. Lady would like to raise the issue of the NHS’s internal guidance on the conduct of consultations, which should also, of course, reflect the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office. The hon. Lady will be aware, as I hope all Members are, that if the overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities are not satisfied with the procedure, evidence or outcome of consultations, they can refer
	them to the Secretary of State, who in my experience is able to take advice from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.

Jessica Lee: Will my right hon. Friend provide time to debate the valuable heritage of our rivers and canals, and the volunteers who work on them? As one of the few MPs whose constituency is named after a river, I understand well the importance of waterways. [Interruption.] We can now begin the list, Mr Speaker. It is worth noting that this is national volunteers week. Such a debate could highlight the campaign for new volunteers to help the Canal & River Trust in Erewash, which has the Erewash rangers scheme, and elsewhere up and down the river and canal network.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises two valuable aspects of life in her constituency. Her views about our canals and rivers, and about volunteering, are shared in many constituencies. I would love to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and dispense debates on such issues, but I direct my hon. Friend and other colleagues to the Backbench Business Committee, which is very receptive to applications for such debates.

Jim McGovern: May we have a debate on how employers can help employees who are suffering from work-related mental health issues? Last year on St Stephen’s day, 26 December, one of my constituents, Filep Myzylowskyj, tragically took his own life. He was employed by National Express as a bus driver and had been on sick leave following an accident involving a pedestrian. His widow, Janet, his family and his friends agree unanimously that his suicide was work-related. I have written to Dean Finch, the chief executive of National Express, seven times. It appears that he simply refuses to respond to my correspondence. Such a debate would help us to determine how employers can help employees and how they should communicate with Members of this House.

Andrew Lansley: Members will sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and he is right to raise the case. I hope that the fact that he has done so will encourage some employers, including National Express, to take note of the points that he makes. Many employers are taking up the opportunity under the responsibility deal to improve the occupational health support for their employees. Through the national health service, we are continuing to expand access to psychological therapies. In my experience, such therapies are particularly valuable for employees who are suffering from work-related stress, anxiety and depression. Early access to those therapies can help to avoid the kind of tragedies to which he refers.

Andrew Stephenson: I look forward to welcoming the Pendle rainbow parliament tomorrow morning for a question and answer session following its parliamentary tour. It is made up of hard-working school children from Nelson St Philip’s Church of England primary school, Walverden primary school, Higham St John’s Church of England primary school, Holy Saviour Roman Catholic primary school and Castercliff community primary school in my constituency. May we have a debate on what we can do to make it easier for
	teachers to take pupils on educational trips so that more Pendle school children can visit Parliament and other educational places?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that matter. I am sure that the House will be delighted to host the Pendle rainbow group. In the last year for which figures are available, 2012-13, some 47,000 young people made educational visits to this place. That is some 10,000 more than in 2010-11. I know that you have attached particular importance to this matter, Mr Speaker, and that increase is testimony to the priority that you have given it. I know that you want us to go further and do better. Ultimately, I hope that schools across the country will feel confident that all young people will come here at some point in their educational life to learn about democratic processes and the history of Westminster.

Tom Blenkinsop: Can we have a debate on how sensible is the Government’s new requirement for a member of the armed forces to get their chain of command to confirm they are deployed on operations, in order for service personnel to secure an exemption from the bedroom tax? Is that efficient and practical when people are deployed to Afghanistan or at sea? May we have a statement on how many members of the armed forces are still awaiting that confirmation, and how many households are now in rent arrears?

Andrew Lansley: I confess I do not know the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I will, of course, raise the point with my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence and ensure that he secures a reply.

Oliver Colvile: In 2020, Britain will commemorate and celebrate the 400th anniversary of the pilgrim fathers leaving Plymouth on the Mayflower to go and found the American colonies. Unfortunately, a number of other cities and towns are trying to claim that they should be the centre of celebrating this main historic event. Please may we have a debate on Britain’s relationship with the USA, so that everybody can be aware that Plymouth is the unrivalled home of the start of the special relationship, and a potential prime contender for hosting the G8 in 2020 when it comes to Britain?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend takes a fantastic opportunity to promote Plymouth’s ambitions in that regard. Being from East Anglia, it is not for me to judge these matters, but having been in Massachusetts and gone to Plimoth Plantation, it seems obvious where those who named it that way thought they had come from.

Barry Sheerman: Mr Speaker, you know that I am not a puritan or killjoy, but like most Members of Parliament I think that the betting and gambling industry is out of control in this country. Fixed-odds betting terminals and bookies are proliferating in every deprived part of our country, and online gambling is destroying lives. Is it not about time that the House tackled the scourge of betting shops, which often sit next to payday loan shops? They are preying on the poorest people in our country, and it is about time that the House was aware of it and acted to regulate this industry which is out of control.

Andrew Lansley: I do not have to agree with the hon. Gentleman to say, just from a business point of view, that he will note that the Government have published the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill. I have not yet been able to tell the House the date of its Second Reading, but when that time comes the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his points.

Daniel Kawczynski: Recently, the British Chambers of Commerce again called for extra support for British exports from the Government. We have not had a debate about exports on the Floor of the House since 2010, yet UK Trade & Investment receives more than £400 million of British taxpayers’ money to help British companies export overseas. I have spent the last 10 months interviewing hundreds of SMEs to get their first-hand experience of UKTI. May we please have a debate on the Floor of the House to scrutinise how the money is spent and consider what more needs to be done to ensure that British companies get the support they rightly deserve to start exporting all over the world?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is an active, energetic advocate for promoting British exports, and I know the work he does. When I was at the British Chambers of Commerce we set up the export advisory service and took on delivery of the export marketing research scheme back in the late 1980s, so I completely understand where the British Chambers of Commerce is coming from. I will, of course, discuss with my hon. Friends what opportunities there may be, and the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement his ambition to support the UKTI in whatever it can achieve to maximise our impact in terms of exports. Whenever we have an opportunity for a debate on economic issues, it is important that we bring forward export and trade promotion as one of the central measures to promote growth.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. More than 20 Back-Bench Members are seeking to catch my eye and I am keen to accommodate them. I remind the House that there is a statement by the Foreign Secretary to follow, and then a number of debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee to which I must give proper consideration. There is, therefore, a premium on brevity from those on the Back and Front Benches alike.

Alison McGovern: The Leader of the House may be aware that the pre-inquest hearings into the deaths of 96 people in the Hillsborough disaster are taking place. Given that press reports of yesterday’s hearing said that lawyers representing the match day commanders accused the Hillsborough independent panel of having a so-called “agenda” guided by the families of those who died, and that questions were raised on whether the Home Office put a block on providing sufficient resources for the inquiry, does he believe it could be helpful to have a debate or statement on the matter?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure whether I can endorse the hon. Lady’s request for a statement at this stage, not least because I am not sure whether my ministerial colleagues would wish to come to the Dispatch Box and
	intervene or express a running commentary on inquest proceedings. She will know that I was able to announce at previous business questions Government support for the families’ legal costs for that inquiry, but in order to be sure I will bring her point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that they are aware of it.

Philip Davies: Has my right hon. Friend seen the case of Geoffrey Bettley, a teacher at St Mary’s in Menston, on the border of my constituency, who downloaded child porn images and was rightly sacked by the school and put on the sex offenders register? In a decision ratified by the Education Secretary, Geoffrey Bettley has been told that he is allowed to teach again. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will appreciate that many parents will be deeply disturbed by the fact that somebody who has been convicted of downloading child porn should be allowed to teach again. Can we have a statement from the Education Secretary so he can explain what on earth he was thinking when he allowed that person to teach again?

Andrew Lansley: I have read press reports on the matter. The decision was taken by the National College for Teaching and Leadership and then endorsed by a senior official at the Department for Education. I will be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education so that he might give my hon. Friend an account of the process in the case.

Jim Sheridan: In responding to a question yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) on the latest lobbying scandal, the Prime Minister made a strange comparison with the open and transparent donations by trade unions to the Labour party. He also said that he would clear up over-influence in the House. Will the Leader of the House clarify what the Prime Minister meant by “third parties” other than trade unions?

Andrew Lansley: What the Prime Minister said was very clear, and it was not just about the question of the statutory register of lobbyists, which should ensure transparency and greater accountability in relation to third-party influence with Ministers and in Parliament. We must be sure that the whole political system has not only a transparent structure, but one that is accountable and open about those who seek to exercise such major third-party influence. Not just trade unions but other organisations seek to do so; the trade unions are a major source of third-party influence in the political system, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.

Tessa Munt: Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the processes in place to follow up the implementation of recommendations made in serious case reviews, and to review and report in public in the long term on the adherence to points made in action plans after incidents in care homes, so that changes to poor practice are made for the long term, and that care of the vulnerable and elderly does not slip backwards?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, to reiterate a point I made earlier, my hon. Friends from the Department of Health will answer questions in the House on Tuesday next, when the hon. Lady might wish to raise that issue with them. The Minister of State, Department of Health, who has responsibility for care services, recently set out further details on how, for example, the Winterbourne View cases are being followed up by the group to ensure that the residents are being well looked after. That example illustrates how important it is that people are not lost in the system, and that serious case reviews are followed up.

Andy Sawford: Given yesterday’s announcement from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government’s plans to cram more toddlers into nurseries have been dropped, may we have a statement on child care policy? It is welcome that Labour Members’ campaigning and that of tens of thousands of parents and child care professionals has forced the Government to drop their plans, but it is shocking that we have not had a statement today. If the Leader of the House will not arrange a statement, will he at least tell us the current policy? The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that the plan had been dropped, but the Leader of the House has told us this morning that it is being reviewed. What is the policy? It is a shambles.

Andrew Lansley: Our policy is to ensure an increase in the quality of child care and to improve affordability for parents: that is what we are setting out to do and that is what we will do. As soon as the policy is agreed, there will no doubt be an opportunity for it to be announced in the House.

Neil Carmichael: As was highlighted on Tuesday by the “Gloucestershire goes to Westminster” event, locally produced food and drink is extremely popular. May we find a way of demonstrating how important local produce is to the rural economy, and have a debate to discuss our locally produced food in the context of the common agricultural policy?

Andrew Lansley: As chance would have it, as I announced earlier the House will discuss a motion on reform of the CAP. Members greatly welcomed Gloucestershire coming to Westminster—many other areas have held similar events—to tell us about its local produce, something we all value in our constituencies.

Valerie Vaz: May we have a debate on the Olympic legacy? Walsall has the only brine swimming pool in the west midlands, which is used for hydrotherapy and general fitness. Walsall also nurtured Ellie Simmons, the Paralympic champion. However, the Gala baths are threatened with closure. May we have an urgent debate on how to protect these vital community services?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot offer time at the moment, but we attach the greatest importance to the Olympic legacy, which Lord Coe is pursuing actively. We committed to the legacy as part of our Olympic bid, and I hope it will be as successful as the Olympics and Paralympics themselves. As regards securing a debate, I suspect that the hon. Lady might like to get together with other colleagues with a view to making representations to the Backbench Business Committee.

Chris White: In an article in The Times yesterday, Daniel Finkelstein raised the issue of industrial policy and called it the economic big idea. I agree completely with this viewpoint. We still need a comprehensive industrial policy that will encourage investment in British manufacturing. May we have a debate on industrial policy and the role it can play in helping to rebalance our economy?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will share my strong support for the industrial strategy set out by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), which focuses on the many sectors where we have identified comparative advantage, and on rebalancing our economy geographically and away from an undue reliance on financial services, to bring forward internationally tradable manufacturing and service industries, which are the only basis for paying our way in the future. I cannot offer a debate on the strategy at the moment, but I hope I have indicated the importance we attach to it. We will look for opportunities for the House to help to frame its implementation.

Geraint Davies: Further to the previous question, City and Guilds today published research that shows that we in this place spend four times as much time debating academic qualifications as vocational qualifications and skills. Most people do not have degrees, while the vast majority of MPs do have them. When can we find time to debate the important issue of skills and vocational training in relation to our growth strategy? Does the Leader of the House have any idea how we might get more representation from people who have had real jobs in the past, and who have even faced redundancy?

Andrew Lansley: I have found in business questions that hon. Members pay consistent and frequent attention to the development of skills. My colleagues have supported the doubling of apprenticeships that has taken place under this coalition Government and the introduction of traineeships to secure, as the Queen’s Speech set out, the expectation that all young people should be going into higher education, traineeships or apprenticeships, to ensure that we have appropriate skills at all levels for those going into the work force.

David Nuttall: I suspect that when the House meets to consider private Members’ Bills for the first time this Session on Friday 5 July it will be rather fuller than it is sometimes on a Friday. Given the likely increased interest in private Members’ Bills, may we please have a statement on whether the Government will if necessary provide more time for their consideration, and clarification on whether, if the Backbench Business Committee were so to decide, the time made available to that Committee could be allocated for the consideration of private Members’ Bills?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend, who increasingly understands intimately the workings of the House, will recall that the time available for private Members’ Bills is established in Standing Orders. It might encourage him to recall that last year that time was sufficient for 10 private Members’ Bills to secure Royal Assent.

Andrew Gwynne: May we have a debate on Ministers’ responsiveness to Members? I wrote to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of my constituent Karen Bawker of Thorneside, Denton, on 4 April in follow-up to correspondence on 11 January, which was answered by him on 4 February. This time I have not had so much as an acknowledgement, let alone a reply, despite my having sent reminders, including most recently at the start of this week. Will the Leader of the House investigate this discourtesy and, through his good offices, also ensure that my constituent’s query is responded to?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course be in touch with my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who I know is an assiduous and hard-working Minister. Like all of us, he seeks to respond to Members’ correspondence within 20 working days, and I am sure he will want to address the reasons he has failed to do so in this instance.

Richard Fuller: May we have a statement from the Government about streamlining procedures at Companies House better to support people trying to start a business for the first time? A constituent of mine had his form returned because it was in the wrong colour ink, and when he sought advice and guidance from Companies House he was told simply, “Look at our website.” When he re-filed to ensure that it was absolutely correct, Companies House returned it, having identified errors that it had missed first time, and then he was fined £375 and told that he was liable to prosecution for a criminal offence. I think we can do better in encouraging business.

Andrew Lansley: It is not a happy tale my hon. Friend tells. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will want to look at that. When we tackle red tape, as we are doing, we should not just be reducing the burden of regulation by taking away unnecessary regulations and simplifying others, but looking constantly—the Cabinet Office is leading on this across Government—at simplifying administration and reducing costs on those who have to comply with regulations.

Jason McCartney: Last week, I made a most enjoyable and informative visit to the National Coal Mining museum near Wakefield, which adjoins my constituency. It was packed with families and children. I, too, would like to add my voice to the calls for a debate on our wonderful national museums and how best to support them financially during these difficult economic times.

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand what my hon. Friend says. He will recall what I said about the Science Museum Group more generally. In that particular instance, although these are operational matters within the group, I understand that there is a £2.5 million per annum ring-fenced grant for the National Coal Mining museum.

Chris Heaton-Harris: In the light of the three debates on European documents that the Leader of the House announced, will he bring forward fresh proposals to enhance how the House and national Parliaments deal with European legislation?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As happy chance would have it, the Foreign Secretary is on the Front Bench alongside me. Last week in Berlin, he set out what I think is essential—I think both sides of the House might agree with this—

Douglas Alexander: indicated assent.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I am saying that we can agree about it. We should increase the influence of national Parliaments over legislation, for the achievement of which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out specific proposals. As Leader of the House, I want to work not least with the European Scrutiny Committee and the Liaison Committee to ensure that we use every opportunity to the maximum, identifying proposals as they come from the European Commission, intervening as early as possible, sending our political and reasoned opinions on the legislation and maximising our influence over EU legislation.

Peter Bone: May I remind the Leader of the House about private Members’ Bills and the days allocated to them? In the last Session the Government tabled a motion, which was passed by the House, to increase the number of sitting days for private Members’ Bills, so I am afraid that hiding behind Standing Orders to suggest that we cannot increase the number of sitting days for private Members’ Bills is not quite correct. May we have a statement on that?

Andrew Lansley: I never like to disagree with my hon. Friend, but in that instance I think we brought forward a motion for the House additionally to sit on a Friday, but not for the consideration of private Members’ Bills—rather, it was for the extension of a debate. If I am wrong, I will gladly confess and correct that. As far as I am aware, the issue is simply put. The number of days—13—is set out in Standing Orders.

Nigel Adams: Sport, as we know, plays a crucial part in the development of young people. May we have a debate on the work of sports clubs in the community? By coincidence, 150 years ago the Yorkshire county cricket club played its first ever official cricket match here in London, across the river, against Surrey. One-hundred and fifty years ago today, Yorkshire skittled out Surrey for 60 runs in the second innings. The Leader of the House will know the names: Hawke, Sutcliffe, Trueman, Close, Boycott, Gough, Lehmann, Vaughan—all Yorkshire sporting legends who have played for a club that does incredible good work in our community. As well as the debate, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Yorkshire on its anniversary? Will he also join me on Monday for a reception on the Terrace for Yorkshire county cricket club, where he will get to meet the great Geoffrey Boycott and the current Yorkshire squad?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had a very full innings.

Andrew Lansley: Who can resist? I absolutely endorse that celebration and commemoration in this House. Let me say how much we applaud Yorkshire county cricket club for its many achievements over 150 years. It would
	be the greatest possible pleasure to meet some of those who have contributed to them. Cricket clubs in Yorkshire and across the country play a vital part in promoting sport and community life. Yorkshire has been at the forefront of that, and I hope we can celebrate that on Monday.

Martin Vickers: It is widely anticipated that a decision on the future of the children’s heart surgery unit in Leeds will be known soon. There has been a wide campaign across the House, involving many Members. Can the Leader of the House assure us that when a decision is made, there will be an oral statement?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I am not aware that he has received, or made any decision in relation to, an independent reconfiguration panel report, but I will of course discuss with him how an announcement will be made in due course.

Philip Hollobone: Earlier this week you confirmed from the Chair, Mr Speaker, that the Standing Orders of the House permit only the Government to make a formal request to recall Parliament. Given that Governments can be tempted to make major policy announcements during the recess and given that the Leader of the House is, after all, the leader of all of us in this place, would he be kind enough to give consideration to amending the relevant Standing Order, so that if a certain threshold—for example, 20%—of Members requesting a recall were met, they would be able to use that mechanism to make a formal request?

Andrew Lansley: Of course, my hon. Friend understands that I take very seriously my responsibility to represent both the Government in this House and the House as a whole, including within the councils of Government. From my point of view, in my recent experience I do not see any mischief—in the sense that there have been issues on which it was thought appropriate for the House to be recalled when Ministers did not take a suitable initiative—but I will keep this under review.

Glyn Davies: This morning the Government issued an important statement about the public voice in relation to onshore wind farms. Three times this morning you have called me, Mr Speaker, and I have asked a similar question about how the statement will affect Wales. I have not received a satisfactory answer. I have been left in a position of deep frustration, and I am sure the people of Wales feel the same. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have an early statement clarifying the position, so that people in Wales will know that applications for developments over 50 MW, which are not devolved, will be subject to today’s new guidelines?

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand my hon. Friend’s concern about this, and his desire to secure proper answers. If I may, I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to see how we might expedite a response.

Andrew Jones: Engineering businesses in my constituency have told me of the challenges that they face in recruiting, particularly in relation to the academic backgrounds of applicants. They are looking for achievement in computer sciences, mathematics and physics. May we please have a debate to discuss what more the Government could do to encourage participation in those critical subjects, and to ensure high standards in the curriculum and rigour in the examinations?

Andrew Lansley: From my point of view, I am clear that my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are working closely together to ensure that we maximise our support for education and training in science, technology and engineering. The first job I ever did, many years ago, was in the then Department of Industry, and it was to support the Young Engineer for Britain scheme and Women into Science and Engineering. This has been a long, hard struggle, but companies today still feel that we in this country do not attach as much importance to science, technology and mathematics as other countries do. We have made significant progress recently in the number of students following those subjects and the success that they are achieving, but we still need to attach greater importance to encouraging the brightest and best to go into engineering and manufacturing industry.

Mark Pawsey: Almost exactly 12 months ago, I raised with the then Leader of the House my concerns about a stretch of the M6 that has become known as “Rugby’s mad mile” because of the large number of accidents in the traffic queuing to join the A14 at Catthorpe. His response was that funds had been allocated for improvements, but that a public inquiry was needed. Twelve months on, we are waiting for the outcome of that public inquiry, but accidents are continuing to happen, with yet another fatality occurring only last week. Given the importance of that junction to the UK motorway network, may we have a ministerial statement on the progress on bringing forward those urgently needed improvements?

Andrew Lansley: As somebody who lives down the A14 in an eastward direction, I am only too familiar with the Catthorpe interchange. My hon. Friend will know that the local public inquiry into the proposed improvement of junction 19 and related sections of the M6 and A14 closed on 16 March this year. The Department for Transport received the inspector’s report on 16 May. The report is currently being considered, and a decision will be issued as soon as possible. Subject to a satisfactory outcome of this statutory process, the Highways Agency expects that construction could start in the spring of 2014. That would be sooner than the date announced in the Chancellor’s 2011 autumn statement, when it was stated that the scheme would be prepared for start of construction before 2015.

Julian Sturdy: May I add my voice to the call for a debate on the importance of local museums and the way in which they protect our culture and heritage for future generations? An example is the fantastic National Railway museum in York, which I
	visited many times as a young boy. I now have the pleasure of taking my young children there, and I know how important that museum is to York’s DNA.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, indeed. I know that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not reiterate what I said earlier about the Science Museum Group, but I will ensure that all the contributions relating to this subject, including his question on the National Railway museum, are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Mau Mau Claims (Settlement)

William Hague: With permission, I would like to make a statement on a legal settlement that the Government have reached concerning the claims of Kenyan citizens who lived through the emergency period and the Mau Mau insurgency from October 1952 to December 1963.
	During the emergency period, widespread violence was committed by both sides, and most of the victims were Kenyan. Many thousands of Mau Mau members were killed, while the Mau Mau themselves were responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 people, including 200 casualties among the British regiments and police.
	Emergency regulations were introduced; political organisations were banned; prohibited areas were created; and provisions for detention without trial were enacted. The colonial authorities made unprecedented use of capital punishment and sanctioned harsh prison, so-called “rehabilitation”, regimes. Many of those detained were never tried, and the links of many with the Mau Mau were never proven. There was recognition at the time of the brutality of these repressive measures and the shocking level of violence, including an important debate in this House on the infamous events at Hola camp in 1959.
	We recognise that British personnel were called upon to serve in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Many members of the colonial service contributed to establishing the institutions that underpin Kenya today, and we acknowledge their contribution. However, I would like to make it clear now and for the first time on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that we understand the pain and grievance felt by those who were involved in the events of the emergency in Kenya. The British Government recognise that Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill treatment at the hands of the colonial administration. The British Government sincerely regret that these abuses took place and that they marred Kenya’s progress towards independence. Torture and ill treatment are abhorrent violations of human dignity, which we unreservedly condemn.
	In October 2009, claims were first brought to the High Court by five individuals, who were detained during the emergency period, regarding their treatment in detention. In 2011, the High Court rejected the claimants’ arguments that the liabilities of the colonial administration transferred to the British Government on independence, but allowed the claims to proceed on the basis of other arguments.
	In 2012, a further hearing took place to determine whether the cases should be allowed to proceed. The High Court ruled that three of the five cases could do so. The Court of Appeal was due to hear our appeal against that decision last month. However, I can announce today that the Government have now reached an agreement with Leigh Day, the solicitors acting on behalf of the claimants, in full and final settlement of their clients’ claims.
	The agreement includes payment of a settlement sum in respect of 5,228 claimants, as well as a gross costs sum to the total value of £19.9 million. The Government will also support the construction of a memorial in Nairobi to the victims of torture and ill-treatment during
	the colonial era. The memorial will stand alongside others that are already being established in Kenya as the country continues to heal the wounds of the past. The British high commissioner in Nairobi is today making a public statement to members of the Mau Mau War Veterans Association in Kenya, explaining the settlement and expressing our regret for the events of the emergency period.
	This settlement provides recognition of the suffering and injustice that took place in Kenya. The Government of Kenya, the Kenya Human Rights Commission and the Mau Mau War Veterans Association have long been in favour of a settlement, and it is my hope that the agreement now reached will receive wide support, will help draw a line under these events and will support reconciliation.
	We continue to deny liability on behalf of the Government and British taxpayers today for the actions of the colonial administration in respect of the claims, and indeed the courts have made no finding of liability against the Government in this case. We do not believe that claims relating to events that occurred overseas outside direct British jurisdiction more than 50 years ago can be resolved satisfactorily through the courts without the testimony of key witnesses, which is no longer available. It is therefore right that the Government have defended the case to this point since 2009.
	It is, of course, right that those who feel they have a case are free to bring it to the courts. However, we will also continue to exercise our own right to defend claims brought against the Government, and we do not believe that this settlement establishes a precedent in relation to any other former British colonial administration.
	The settlement I am announcing today is part of a process of reconciliation. In December this year, Kenya will mark its 50th anniversary of independence and the country’s future belongs to a post-independence generation. We do not want our current and future relations with Kenya to be overshadowed by the past. Today, we are bound together by commercial, security and personal links that benefit both our countries. We are working together closely to build a more stable region. Bilateral trade between the UK and Kenya amounts to £1 billion each year, and around 200,000 Britons visit Kenya annually.
	Although we should never forget history and, indeed, must always seek to learn from it, we should also look to the future, strengthening a relationship that will promote the security and prosperity of both our nations. I trust that this settlement will support that process. The ability to recognise error in the past but also to build the strongest possible foundation for co-operation and friendship in the future are both hallmarks of our democracy.

Douglas Alexander: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? However, may I begin my remarks by asking him about a procedural point: why, given a Minister’s obligation to the House and the importance of this announcement, were the details, including the wording of the statement of regret, the scale of the quantum agreed and details of the legal
	background to the settlement, all provided to the newspapers yesterday before the House of Commons today? A full report appeared on
	The Guardian
	website at 6.42 yesterday evening and on
	The Times
	website at 7.30 yesterday evening. I hope that in his response the Foreign Secretary will offer the House a candid explanation as to why that occurred.
	Let me turn to the substance of the matter in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. First, may I place on record the cross-party consensus that exists on this issue and offer my support for the Foreign Secretary’s efforts in seeing a legal settlement being agreed? Much has already been said of the suffering on all sides that lies at the heart of today’s announcements. On 20 October 1952, Governor Baring signed an order declaring a state of emergency in Kenya. The violence that followed, carried out by both sides in the conflict, has been well documented, not least thanks to the brave and tragic testimony of many survivors who lived through it. As the Foreign Secretary said, there were hundreds of casualties among the British soldiers, police and officials, but during the period of emergency in Kenya most of the victims and casualties were Kenyan, with many thousands of Mau Mau members killed, and thousands more imprisoned and displaced. It is therefore right that the Foreign Secretary recognised the challenges and dangers that British personnel in Kenya faced at that time, but the mass detention camps, the forced resettlement and the levels of brutality that characterised that period in Kenyan history must also be recognised. The numbers of dead and those not accounted for is, of course, still debated, but I think there is broad consensus in all parts of this House that the scale of the suffering was profound and deeply regrettable.
	That is why I welcome today’s statement by the Foreign Secretary and want to echo his words acknowledging that Kenyans were tortured and mistreated by the colonial administration. I also want to support further today’s expression of deep regret and unreserved condemnation of those actions. The British Government are right to reflect on our country’s colonial past, not simply because the legacy of our past is still being felt today, but because we must look to history, learn its lessons and use them to help chart a course going forward. All parts of this House share an interest in seeing this issue resolved, which is why today I wish to put on record my support for the right hon. Gentleman’s work over recent months to press for a fair resolution as Foreign Secretary.
	So we support the announcements made today in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but I seek his clarification on a number of issues that arise as a result. First, could he confirm to the House which departmental budget is funding the £19.9 million of which he spoke, which makes up the full and final settlement announced today? Will he also set out what meetings his Department has had with representatives of the Mau Mau claimants, and could he update the House as to their collective view of and response to today’s announcement? Indeed, will he further explain what he anticipates will be the response of the Kenyan Government, in particular, to today’s announcement?
	The British Government must continue, of course, to be categorical in their condemnation of torture and ill treatment, which are abhorrent violations of human dignity. It is right that current and future relations with
	Kenya are not overshadowed by the past. So, along with the Foreign Secretary, I hope that today’s announcement will encourage even stronger ties between our two nations going forward, despite, but not ignoring, our shared and, at times, troubled past.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that the cross-party approach is important. These claims were first made in 2009, under the last Government, and the last Government decided to contest them in the courts. That was the right decision, because all of us together contest the liability of British taxpayers in the 21st century for what happened under colonial administrations. However, we are also right to support this settlement together, because it is the best outcome all round for both the British taxpayer and the claimants. Many of the claimants are of course very old, and further protracted legal proceedings would not necessarily be in their interests.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked, quite rightly, about reports in the press. As I think he and the House recognise, I am an enthusiast for announcing things to Parliament. While I am not in a position to point a finger of accusation at anyone, I note that, in view of the nature of the settlement, information about it had been circulated beyond the Government before today. I also note that some of the figures given in newspaper reports are different from the figures that I have given today, and have clearly not come from the Foreign Office. However, the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to make the point that such announcements are best made to Parliament in the first instance. He was also right to join in the sincere regret that the Government have expressed: it will mean a great deal in Kenya that regret has been expressed by the Opposition as well as by the Government.
	Let me turn to the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. The claim will not be met by any departmental budget; it is a claim on the Treasury reserve. That is what the reserve is for—to provide lump sums that cannot be anticipated or budgeted for.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what meetings the Government had had. This matter has been a subject of legal proceedings for four years, and the meetings that have been held with the aim of reaching a settlement have taken place with the lawyers of the claimants. From that it can be deduced that the claimants are happy with the settlement. Certainly the lawyers have expressed satisfaction on their behalf.
	The Kenyan Government called for a settlement, and it is now for them to react to this settlement in whatever way they wish, but I hope that they will welcome it. The British high commissioner in Nairobi has met the Kenyan human rights commission and representatives of the Mau Mau in recent weeks, and, as I said in my statement, he will be speaking to Mau Mau veterans today, in particular about our plans for a memorial. However, all the contact in London has been with the lawyers.
	Let me say again that, like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that stronger ties between our countries are very important. Kenya is an important partner of this country in trade and tourism, and also—this is particularly important—in countering terrorism and seeking stability in east Africa. We work with Kenya closely in trying to bring stability to Somalia, for instance. I hope that the settlement will make it easier for us to do all those things in the future.

Bob Stewart: I support what we have done. However, when I was a little boy my father was a soldier operating in Aden, and I remember being absolutely petrified by the stories of British-origin settlers and farmers being chopped to bits by the Mau Mau. I note that we are going to subsidise and help to build a memorial to the Mau Mau, but may I make a suggestion? Given that not only were 200 British soldiers and policemen killed, but 1,800 civilians perished as a result of Mau Mau activities, I think that it would be very appropriate for a memorial to be erected to them—both Kenyans and those of British origin.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that terrible acts were committed on both sides over a long period, between 1952 and 1963. Thirty-two European settlers were murdered in horrific circumstances, and many actions that can only be categorised as terrorist actions were undertaken by people who were part of the Mau Mau insurgency.
	Equally, however, it is important for us to recognise—as we do, across the House—that torture and inhuman and degrading treatment can never, and should never, be part of our response to any outrage, however terrible. That is because we uphold our own high standards of human rights, and also because it is not an effective way in which to respond to any such outrages. It is very important that we express our own regret and acknowledge mistakes that were made, even though terrible acts were carried out on both sides.
	As my hon. Friend will have noted, I recognised in my statement the service done by those employed by the colonial administration, who did so much work to build the institutions that underpin Kenya today. My statement was about the recognition of people engaged in the Mau Mau insurgency or accused of being so engaged, and I think that questions about other memorials and recognition of other people are for a different occasion, but I take full account of the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I appreciate that these are extremely sensitive matters, but we have a heavy schedule, so we need to speed things up somewhat.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, but I was a bit surprised when, towards the end of it, he said that the British Government “continue to deny liability” for what happened. It is very strange that the Government should arrive at a settlement with Leigh Day and offer compensation, and at the same time deny liability.
	Liability was well known in the 1950s. Fenner Brockway, Barbara Castle, Leslie Hale, Tony Benn and many other MPs raised the issue in Parliament during the 1950s. It is only the steadfastness of people in Kenya who stood for justice and against the use of concentration camps, torture, castration, and all the vile things that were done to Kenyan prisoners by the British forces that has finally brought about this settlement. I met many of those victims last year when they came here to go to court, and I pay tribute to them, and to Dan Thea and others who have organised the campaign that has finally brought this day about.
	There are serious lessons to be learnt. When we deny rights and justice, when we deny democracy, when we use concentration camps, our actions reduce our ability to criticise anyone else for that fundamental denial of human rights. That lesson needs to be learnt not just from Kenya, but from other colonial wars in which equal brutality was employed by British forces.

William Hague: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s extensive knowledge. He is right to speak about the terrible nature of some of the things that happened, and also right to speak—as I did a few moments ago—about the importance of upholding our own highest standards, expressing that very clearly to the world, and ensuring that we do it now.
	The hon. Gentleman asked, in particular, about the consistency between recognition of those things and the Government’s continuing to deny liability. What we are making clear—as the last Government did when contesting these claims in the courts in 2009—is that we do not agree with the principle that generations later, 50 or 60 years on in the 21st century, the British taxpayer can be held liable for what happened under colonial administrations in the middle of the 20th century. However, while we cannot accept that as a principle, we have reached a settlement in this case, and I am pleased that it has been welcomed in the House.

Daniel Kawczynski: Governments of various political colours have contested these claims through the courts over a period. May I first ask the Foreign Secretary what, specifically, has happened recently to cause the Government to change their position and acquiesce to this? Secondly—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that one question will do. I have just made a point about brevity, which should not be flagrantly defied.

William Hague: I will try also to give brief answers. I described in my statement how the legal cases were proceeding. There had been a series of hearings in 2011 and 2012. The Government had contested all of the cases, but the High Court had decided that three out of five of them could proceed, on grounds that were quite specific to this particular case and to the Mau Mau insurgency. It does not therefore set a precedent for other cases. Given that it had decided that, the Government came to the view that it was in the interests of the British taxpayer, and also of the claimants, to come to a settlement on this particular matter.

David Winnick: Terrible things were undoubtedly done on both sides, but may I tell the Foreign Secretary that many of us opposed from the start what we considered to be a totally unnecessary colonial war, as, indeed, we opposed what happened in Cyprus at around 1960? Although I would not normally quote Enoch Powell, because of the outburst in 1968 and other matters, in the debate on 27 July 1959 on the murder of 11 African detainees, he said:
	“We cannot say, ‘We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home’…We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below
	our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.”—[ Official Report , 27 July 1959; Vol. 610, c. 237.]
	For once, Enoch Powell was right.

Mr Speaker: I think the Foreign Secretary will remember that Denis Healey described the speech in his autobiography as the greatest parliamentary speech he ever heard, carrying all the moral force of Demosthenes.

William Hague: Enoch Powell did, indeed, give a remarkable and powerful speech in the debate in 1959, and I read it in preparing for this statement. [Interruption.] I was not born at the time, so I did not read it then. There will be many strong views held about the events of that time, although most of us who are Members of the House now did not have a strong view at the time because we were not around then, but there is a strong tradition in this House going all the way back to the 18th century. In the 1780s, Edmund Burke called Governments to account for colonial misdeeds in India and sought to bring Warren Hastings to trial. There is a long and proud history of this House asserting itself on the errors that have been made during our imperial rule of other countries, and our recognition of these errors today is part of that long tradition.

Tessa Munt: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It serves us well to approach this whole matter with sensitivity and humility. There are some fairly serious disputes about the numbers of people involved. The official figures say 11,000 Mau Mau rebels were killed and only 32 white settlers, but David Anderson, professor of African politics at Oxford, says that probably 25,000 people died at the hands of the colonial organisation. I wonder whether there should be a debate about the past, and whether we ought to make sure that adults, some of whom will remember these events, know about what happened, and also that young people learn from this period of history. Might the Foreign Secretary speak to the Education Secretary and consider whether this part of our colonial past, which did not cover us with glory, might be a topic for discussion in schools?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I do not suppose there will ever be universally agreed figures in respect of what happened and how many people were killed in what was such a confused and terrible situation in such a large country. I will refer her points on to my hon. Friends with responsibility for these matters, and the Deputy Leader of the House is present, hearing another bid for parliamentary time and discussion. It is very important for us always to learn, in whatever form, from mistakes of the past. We are recognising that today. Indeed, the abhorrence of torture and ill treatment, and the strictness of the rules we now have against that for everyone working on behalf of the United Kingdom, are part of our recognition that mistakes were made in the past.

Keith Vaz: I also welcome this important and historic statement, which was so eloquently delivered by the Foreign Secretary. These were dark days in the history of our country. My wife was born in Kisumu in Kenya, and her family lived through this violence. Many thousands of Kenyan Asians have come to settle in Leicester. They will see this as a line being
	drawn in the sand. How does the Foreign Secretary intend to take the relationship with Kenya forward in the future?

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the statement. The relationship with Kenya is very important to our country, and I mentioned a few moments ago the many different dimensions of it. It is a relationship that we want to expand, in terms of trade in particular, to the benefit of both nations. It is also very important for stability in east Africa. Given the UK’s leading role there, for instance in the work we do on Somalia, our relations with Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia are of great importance, and we give great attention to them. I hope relations between the UK and Kenya will develop over the coming years and decades in a true sense of partnership, with the new generations moving on fully from everything that happened in the colonial era. A sense of equal partnership with African nations is now how we should approach our relationships with these countries.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the statements, expressing regret, made by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary. The ghastly impact of Mau Mau on African Kenyan citizens as well as European settlers is well documented in the wonderful books by the Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong’o, but we must accept that there were totally unacceptable actions by British colonial authorities, and I am glad that has happened today. We have an important development relationship with Kenya, and important joint security concerns, such as on piracy off the coast of Africa. To what extent will this statement make it easier for our countries to co-operate, and to do so better than before, on issues of common interest?

William Hague: I hope it will make it easier. It should remove one of the areas of contention between the UK and Kenya—or the people of Kenya. The hon. Gentleman rightly notes the breadth and importance of our co-operation, so I hope it will smooth the path for our effective co-operation in the future. Of course that relies on many other things, however. It relies on the daily commitment of each nation to make our bilateral relations work successfully, but I certainly hope this settlement will be a help, rather than a hindrance, in that very important process.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and colleagues.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[1st allotted day]

Public Administration Committee Report (Charity Commission)

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Third Report of the Public Administration Select Committee, The role of the Charity Commission and “public benefit”: Post-legislative scrutiny of the Charities Act 2006, HC 76.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to launch the Public Administration Committee’s third report of this Session. This is, in many ways, one of the Committee’s most important reports. The charitable sector is at the heart of British society, involving millions of people and with £9.3 billion received in donations last year. About 25 new applications for charitable status are received by the Charity Commission every working day.
	The first UK charity was established in the year 597: the King's school, Canterbury, which still thrives today. The regulation of charities in England and Wales started under Queen Elizabeth I, with the 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses, which set out the first definition of a charity in English law and the purposes for which a charity could be established. The definition of a charity has remained largely unchanged from that time. Page 8 of our report carries a useful timeline of the development of charity law since then.
	The subject of the Committee’s inquiry was the Charities Act 2006. Our inquiry followed the Government’s own review of the Act, carried out by Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I hope the House will join me in thanking my noble Friend for his valuable and meticulous work.
	The Committee’s inquiry came at a challenging time for the Charity Commission. Its budget is being reduced by 33% in real terms over five years. The Charity Commission has also become involved in some protracted legal battles. It lost a case with the Independent Schools Council and its decision last year to decline an application for charitable status from the Preston Down Trust, part of what is called the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church or, formerly, the Exclusive Brethren—

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I will give way at the end of my remarks.
	That decision was challenged and taken to the charity tribunal—

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that he will give way at the end of his remarks. I understand that the debate is time limited, so can he give us some idea of when he is likely to finish? I am the only other member of the Committee in the Chamber and I profoundly disagree with this very poor report. If I am to be gagged and not allowed to speak by the Chair—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sure that that is not the intention, Mr Flynn. Under this procedure, Mr Jenkin can take up to 20 minutes to present his report but he will take interventions as he is going along.

Paul Flynn: He has just refused one.

Dawn Primarolo: I think we should interpret his remarks, as I did, to mean that he wanted to finish the point he was making before he took an intervention. I am sure that that was what you meant, Mr Jenkin, was it not?

Bernard Jenkin: I will give way to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and I can assure the House that I have never been able to gag him, try as I might. I can assure him that my speech will by no means fill the 20 minutes available; I hope it will fill no more than half that.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I want to make sure that we are both clear on the procedure. If you make your remarks and sit down, that is the end, so we need you to take interventions during your speech.

Bernard Jenkin: I quite understand.
	We received firm advice from the Attorney-General that we should treat the Preston Down case as sub judice to avoid prejudging any future tribunal decisions. In any case, it is not for PASC to determine the charitable status of individual cases.
	The impact of the 2006 Act on the issue of public benefit and charitable status was at the centre of the inquiry. It has always been the case that charities must be established for charitable purposes only and that a charitable purpose must be “for the public benefit”, but the 2006 Act is said to have removed the presumption of public benefit from the list of headings that has historically existed, although case law prompts the question whether there ever was in fact such a presumption. However, the Act also placed a duty on the commission to publish guidance on public benefit, even though Parliament failed to define “public benefit” in the Act.
	That aspect of the Act has been an administrative and financial disaster for the Charity Commission and for the charities involved, absorbing vast amounts of energy and commitment. Lord Hodgson describes the public benefit aspect of the Act as “a hospital pass”, inviting the commission to become involved in matters such as the charitable status of independent schools, which have long been a matter of political controversy.
	We criticise the Charity Commission’s interpretation of the Act in some cases, but ultimately find that
	“the Charities Act 2006 is critically flawed on the question of public benefit and should be revisited by Parliament”.

Peter Bone: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Bernard Jenkin: I will give way to my hon. Friend when I am close to the end of my remarks.
	We recommend that the presumption of public benefit in the 2006 Act should be repealed along with the Charity Commission’s statutory public benefit objective. The situation must be rectified with a new Act to allow
	the commission to focus on its proper job. Parliament, not the Charity Commission, should determine the criteria for charitable status and should not delegate them to an executive body.
	We concluded that the other objectives for the Charity Commission set by the 2006 Act are also far too vague and aspirational in character—an all-too-frequent shortcoming of modern legislative drafting—to determine what the Charity Commission should do, given the limitations on its resources, to fulfil its statutory objectives.

David Nuttall: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bernard Jenkin: The Cabinet Office must consider how to prioritise what is expected of the Charity Commission, so that it can function with its reduced budget. That must enable it to renew its focus on regulation as its core task. The commission is not resourced, for example,
	“to promote the effective use of charitable resources”
	or, for that matter, to oversee a reappraisal of what is meant by “public benefit”; nor is it ever likely to be.
	PASC’s report also makes recommendations on the issue of chugging—that is, the face-to-face fundraising whereby many feel pressured by chuggers.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Bernard Jenkin: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	The chair of the Charity Commission, William Shawcross, described chugging as
	“a blight on the charitable sector”.
	Self-regulation has failed so far to address that. The case for statutory regulation of fundraising is compelling, but what about the cost, whether to the taxpayer or to charities themselves? Self-regulation has made some progress, but we recommend that it is placed on notice and reviewed in five years’ time.
	Lord Hodgson proposed a rise in the threshold for compulsory registration with the Charity Commission to £25,000 a year to reduce red tape for smaller charities. We rejected that on the basis of the overwhelming majority of the evidence we received.
	We also recommended against any relaxation of the rules on political campaigning by charities. Moreover, charities should publish their spending on campaigning and political activity to boost transparency. That is relevant to the question of lobbying, which Parliament is shortly to consider.
	As for the question whether public funds should be used by charities involved with political campaigns, again transparency is the answer. Ministers should inform Parliament whenever a decision is made to provide Government support by direct grant to a charity that is involved in political campaigning.
	Earlier this week, the Public Accounts Committee reported on the case of the Cup Trust and the specific issue of sham charities and tax avoidance. We welcome its report and the Charity Commission should learn from that scandal. We question whether the commission’s legal advice was too cautious and whether they should have acted more boldly. If the commission feels that it
	lacks necessary powers, it should tell us. Generally, however, the abuse of charitable status to obtain tax relief is intolerable and should be uncovered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Charity Commission working more closely together.

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I want first to give way to my fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Newport West.

Paul Flynn: The report does nothing to add to the reputation of this House. It is an atrocious report and it is a bad reflection on our systems that the Chairman of the Committee can take up the entire time devoted to its consideration.
	Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the point about the situation with independent public schools. It was hoped that the 2006 Act would change the unfairness whereby Eton and Harrow get a handout from taxpayers whereas ordinary schools in poor areas do not. The Act tried to change that, but a perverse decision taken by the law stated that the status of a charity depends on what it was established for, not on what it does. Two charities—one in Wales that exists to give petticoats to fallen women and another that exists to give education to the orphans of the Napoleonic wars—are more important than the fact that ordinary schools are deprived of charity status whereas public schools for the rich and privileged continue to enjoy that status and the related handouts.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he demonstrates the diversity of view on the question of the charitable status of independent schools. That shows why that matter should be decided by this House and Parliament, rather than simply being passed to the Charity Commission to determine. It is too controversial and we should not be delegating legislative functions to an executive body.

Barry Sheerman: I am obviously not a member of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, but I am a trustee and chair of a number of charities. Can he comment at all on the well-known whistleblower who worked for the Charity Commission but said that the weakness of the commission is that it has absolutely no power to investigate what is known to be widespread fraud in the charitable world? The commission is ineffective at doing that and does not have the necessary staff. Even the staff it does have are not directed to that large-scale fraud, which the whistleblower who came to see me told me is going on and must be stopped.

Bernard Jenkin: I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman’s point. We did not major on that during this inquiry, but it might be something to which we return. We recommend in our report that the Charity Commission and HMRC should work much more closely together. In fact, HMRC has the resource to investigate, penetrate and demand information about charities and their tax affairs and donors. In my personal opinion, it is as much a failure of HMRC as of the Charity Commission, but we recommend they work together more closely. What we have to be
	absolutely clear about is that the Charity Commission cannot start to conduct extensive investigations into the tax affairs of charities and their donors; it simply is not resourced to do so.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Committee on producing such an excellent report—

Paul Flynn: You haven’t read it.

Peter Bone: There it is, Paul. I’ve read it—okay?

Barry Sheerman: We’ll test you on it.

Peter Bone: Madam Deputy Speaker, the suggestions being made from a sedentary position that I have not read the report are outrageous.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Bone, I quite agree. Mr Sheerman, Mr Flynn, you have made your contributions, and shouting across the Chamber is not helpful.

Barry Sheerman: He spends his life shouting across the Chamber.

Dawn Primarolo: Well, the next time he shouts across the Chamber when I am in the Chair, I can assure you I will pick him up, as I do everyone. Mr Bone, you may continue.

Peter Bone: May I refer to a different aspect of the report, on charitable status for religious institutions? Many such institutions feel that there has been creep by the Charity Commission in defining public benefit or, worse still, going to the tribunal to define it. From what the Chair of the Committee is saying, I gather that he thinks this is something that Parliament should revisit.

Bernard Jenkin: That is exactly right. The legal advice we received on this question is quite clear: in the 1949 case of Gilmour v. Coats, the House of Lords made it clear that a cloistered religious order is not charitable, as any benefit is restricted to its members, who are a private class and not a sufficient section of the public. It has never been the case that every religious organisation is automatically charitable. However, the judgments in two other cases—Neville Estates v. Madden in 1962 and Re Banfield in 1968—were that a private religious group that is not wholly shut off from the world at large may be charitable.
	The 2006 Act was not intended to introduce anything new, and it may have introduced some instability by requiring the commission to think up guidance on public benefit. That is what we feel was the real mistake—the apparent removal of the presumption and the requirement to produce guidance. If Parliament wants public benefit to be defined, it should define public benefit or it should leave the matter to the courts. Making the Charity Commission use its intervening judgment is what Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts described as the hospital pass.

David Nuttall: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but first I give way to my hon. Friend.

David Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for their report. I look forward to reading it in more detail, but I will be honest and say that I have only had a chance to skim through it. I want to concentrate on conclusion 28, on the payment of trustees. Does he agree with me that in cases where there are voluntary trustees who are willing to replace expensive paid-for corporate trustees, that should be encouraged, welcomed and, indeed, facilitated by the Charity Commission?

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because we were presented by my noble Friend Lord Hodgson with a recommendation that it should be made much easier for trustees to be paid officials. I have to say that there was a strong reaction against that proposal, which has a bearing on the point my hon. Friend raises because the whole point about charities is that trustees are not paid. There may be quite highly paid executives in charities, but the job of a trustee is not to benefit financially from being a trustee. There are exceptions, but the Charity Commission has to approve them. I believe my hon. Friend is suggesting that the commission should be prepared to withdraw that consent in the event of a person offering to do the job for nothing. I invite the commission to consider that matter, which we may revisit in a future inquiry.

Paul Flynn: Following the remark by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that a number of Christian denominations have been under pressure from the Charity Commission, will the Chair of the Committee remind the House that 1,176 Christian and other religious associations were awarded charity status, but only one tiny and oppressive sect was turned down, and that was Hales Exclusive Brethren? Is it not appropriate to remind the House that we were subjected to the most intensive lobbying on this matter? Two million pounds was spent and I was personally approached—face to face—more than 50 times, including at my party conference. Around every corner in this House, there were members of that very unpleasant sect waiting to accost us. The Committee made a point about the control of bodies that lobby in that way. It was not about religion or charitable status; it was about money.

Bernard Jenkin: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and he made his views clear in the Committee. I just re-emphasise that we declined to express a view one way or the other on the merits of that case on the advice of the Attorney-General.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. The point I was trying to make is that there are religious organisations of all faiths that are concerned about what is happening and what might happen in the future.

Bernard Jenkin: That is certainly correct. There has been widespread fear among many colleagues that the case presages a crackdown on religious groups by the Charity Commission. I believe the consistent message in our
	report is that we believe that too much has been laid at the door of the commission to determine. If Parliament wishes to legislate to provide additional restrictions against religious organisations, it is for Parliament to do that, but there is established case law, which I quoted earlier, that should determine whether or not a religious organisation becomes a charity. It is unfortunate that that particular case became so adversarial. It has to be said that the charity tribunal has not reduced the costs of litigation as was hoped, and there is scope to improve the practices of the commission in handling such disputes, so that vast amounts of the time and resources of the commission and charities, or potential charities, is not absorbed in paying lawyers to argue about how many angels there are on the head of a pin.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that particular sect has been involved in lobbying in other countries—including paying politicians, although I am not saying that that has happened here—and that the resulting disquiet among other religious groups was entirely because of the propaganda of Hales Exclusive Brethren? This is not a religion; it is a very nasty sect that treats its members very badly. We had people giving evidence in this House that they were threatened with losing their job, their home or their mortgage because they bought the wrong computer—not the one that Exclusive Brethren have, which, rather like what happens in North Korea, can only pick up the group’s website. This is an exceptional group of people, and the Charity Commission took no action that was disreputable or wrong. The commission did the right thing in identifying that group and allowing 1,176 other religious groups to have charitable status.

Bernard Jenkin: I am sure the whole House has heard the hon. Gentleman’s strong opinions on that matter. He will know that the Committee as a whole declined to express a definitive view on the matter on the advice of the Attorney-General. My understanding is that we all agreed that such matters would be best settled by Parliament laying down more clearly the meaning of public benefit or by returning to the previous position in which it was left to the courts to decide, rather than by requiring the Charity Commission to produce guidance on the meaning of public benefit, which has been the source of much dispute.
	If there are no more interventions—I should be happy to give way to either Front Bencher—I will conclude by stating our belief that the implementation of our recommendations is essential to restore and to maintain public trust in charities and in the Charity Commission, which in turn is essential to promote the good work done by charitable organisations in communities across the country. I hope that the House will join me in thanking the charity commissioners and everyone who works for the commission. They are dealing with a vast work load with diminishing resources—like much of the public sector, they have had to suffer extensive redundancies, with more to come—and we rely on their devoted service. We should thank them for everything they do for charities in this country.
	Question put and agreed to.

Student Visas

[Relevant documents: Fourth Report of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Session 2012-13, Overseas Students and Net Migration, HC 425, and the Government response, Cm 8557, Seventh Report of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Session 2012-13, Too little, Too late: Committee’s observations on the Government Response to the Report on Overseas Students and Net Migration, HC 1015, and the Government response, Cm 8622, Fifth Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, The work of the UK Border Agency (December 2011-March 2012), HC 71, Sixth Special Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, The work of the UK Border Agency (December 2011-March 2012): Government response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2012-13, HC 825, Eighth Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, The work of the UK Border Agency (April-June 2012), HC 603, and the Government response, Cm 8591, Seventh Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 2012-13, Immigration: The Points Based System–Student Route, HC 101, and the Treasury minute, Cm 8467]

Adrian Bailey: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the recommendations of the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee, and the Committee of Public Accounts, together with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee and the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, for the removal of students from net migration targets; and invites the Home Office to further consider the conclusions of these Committees in developing its immigration policy.
	I thank the Back-Bench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate. I am grateful to those Members who helped me get this Back-Bench business debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is not only a fellow Select Committee member, but secretary of the all-party higher education group, whom I thank for the work that he has done, and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), whom I thank for the assiduous way in which he has backed the Select Committee recommendations and worked to ensure that they get wider recognition.
	The motion demonstrates that there have been five Select Committee reports on this subject. All have examined the student visas issue, all have come to similar conclusions and all have been consistently rejected by the Home Office, even though a considerable number of Government Members on the relevant Select Committees have backed those reports. However, the wording of the motion is deliberately designed not to pursue a confrontational approach with the Home Office, and I will not seek to divide the House on the motion. Rather, the motion has been tabled in order to give the House an opportunity to present a case for removing students from the net migration figures in a way that will be evidence-led and lead to further consideration in the evolution and, I hope, refinement of the Government’s immigration policies.

Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adrian Bailey: Yes, I could not resist the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on securing the debate and accurately reflecting the views of the Home Affairs Committee.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that the way we conduct this debate—the language that we use—is extremely important? Over the past year, in the case of India, for example, there has been a 30% decline in the number of students coming to this country because the message has got out that they are not welcome here. Our message is that they are welcome here, and we need to reflect this in the debate that we have and in Government policy.

Adrian Bailey: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not just the regulatory regime, but the language surrounding the introduction and implementation of that regulatory regime, which define international perception of our policy. I will touch on that in the course of my remarks.

Julian Huppert: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on securing this debate on a very important issue. International students make a huge difference. Apologies from me and, I am sure, from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, as we have a Home Affairs Committee debate in another place which starts shortly.
	Further to the question from the Select Committee Chair, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are three things that we have to get right—the rhetoric, the policy and the administration? If we fall foul of any of those, we will not get the outcomes that we need.

Adrian Bailey: I agree. In varying degrees, none of those is right at present.
	Before I go on to the substance of the issues, let me make it clear that no MP in any party can be unaware of public concerns about immigration or can fail to recognise the legitimacy of the Government’s intentions to address that. Similarly, I do not think that any MP in any party can object to actions being taken against bogus colleges and the use of education as a route to illegal immigration. I am sure all MPs of all parties would stand behind the Government and the education system as a whole in seeking to block that.

Barry Sheerman: I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on this very good report. It meshes well with the Higher Education Commission report on post-graduate education, which he will know of. What is good about his report is that it flags up in a sensible way the problems of migration and bogus colleges, but points out strongly that, within this international market and this great employment and wealth creator, the universities of this country and post-graduate education in particular are sensitive to the possible reaction of legitimate students—highly qualified people—who come here.

Adrian Bailey: The hon. Gentleman addresses an important point. Skills and higher education is now a global market. Those with the best brains are increasingly footloose and go to the places where they think they will get the best opportunity to develop their expertise and where they feel they will get the warmest welcome. It is in that international context that we must look at our policies on student visas.
	In addressing what must be recognised as a hugely sensitive issue and a focus of public concern, the Government must have a student regime that does not deter bona fide international students and does not undermine our further education colleges, our universities or the wider economy. I recognise the efforts that the Prime Minister has made to visit India and China in particular to make it clear unequivocally that there is no cap on bona fide student applications. However, the Prime Minister has a credibility problem if, at the same time as he proclaims those things, students who wish to come to this country from abroad find that their dealings with the Home Office and the visa process completely contradict his public assertions.

Stephen McCabe: Does my hon. Friend find it slightly perplexing that we have seen a drop of about 40,000 a year in overseas student numbers, which suggests that the very people he wants to attract are being deterred, and that simultaneously we have seen a huge growth in temporary student visas—the very group that the independent inspector warned is most likely to include bogus students?

Adrian Bailey: My hon. Friend mentions an important point. I shall deal with that in some depth in a moment.
	Within the regulatory regime, the current problems are focused on the inflexibility of the tier 4 visa for undergraduate education. Over and above that and linked to it are the problems associated with the post-study work visa. There is no doubt that many international students who want an undergraduate education want to carry that on at postgraduate level in order to demonstrate the skills that they have acquired in local universities, the local public sector or sometimes local businesses. The majority deterrent to that within the existing visa structure is the high salary threshold, which precludes much postgraduate working in areas where salaries for graduates are lower or in professions where salaries for graduates are lower.
	Credibility interviews are the process that the Home Office is using to interview would-be international students in their home countries to establish the credibility of their claims to want higher education in this country. The feedback that I am getting time and again from universities is that that approach appears to be incoherent and inconsistent. Taken together with the change in regulations, it reinforces the perception abroad that Britain is no longer open to business. The fact that the Prime Minister needs to go to these countries and make these statements is a tacit admission that there is a real problem and a gap between the regulatory regime as stated by the Government and the perception of it abroad.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. In London alone, tuition fees are paid by overseas students to the value of £870 million, so we have a tremendous gain from these students coming here. At my local colleges, Goldsmith’s and Trinity Laban, the student experience is vastly enhanced by the presence of foreign students.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. I will elaborate on that point in a moment, and I am sure that Members representing other universities would seek to do so.
	We really need to sing about the fact that further and higher education in Britain is a success story. It is not just a way for people to fulfil their personal career ambitions or to develop themselves culturally and socially, important though that is; it is an industry that earns £8 billion in exports and contributes £14 billion, in all, to the British economy. In certain towns, particularly in more deprived regions, it is crucial in sustaining employment levels and economies. Four UK universities are in the world university top 10 rankings, and a very high percentage are in the top 200. It is not just about the contribution that international students make to the economies of the local areas in which universities are located. Increasingly, universities are working in collaboration with local businesses to ensure that the research and skills that they develop are harnessed for commercial purposes or with the public sector to assist in the local community. I have seen fantastic examples of that work up and down the country, and it is crucially underpinned by international students.
	Last year, 12% of the total student body comprised international students, 49% of whom enrolled in courses in engineering, maths and computer sciences—the very areas where there are serious skills shortages and the maximum economic dividend for our businesses. Any policy that restricts access into those areas will have, in the long term, profound implications for the capacity of our local businesses to grow the economy.

Bob Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate from the Backbench Business Committee. He may well come to this point, but I would like to make it as well. Many people who come to this country to study get a very good impression of it. They get educated here and they experience our values and understand what we stand for. When they go back, they become a friend of this country in their own societies. That is terribly important for the future of our country and, indeed, their countries.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although he has taken half my next point. Perhaps he made it considerably better than I would.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adrian Bailey: Very quickly, but I have already taken a lot of interventions.

Jeremy Corbyn: I appreciate that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be aware that I represent the constituency that includes London Metropolitan university. Although things have moved on a long way and some overseas students are now being recruited, will he express regret about how that university has been treated and the damage that was done to Britain’s international reputation by the Home Office’s handling of the situation?

Adrian Bailey: Whatever the case for taking action there, the way that it was handled has undoubtedly had considerable adverse repercussions abroad. Perhaps the case needs to be examined to see whether similar problems that may emerge in future can be dealt with in a less damaging way.
	We have a superb industry and there is a huge and increasing global demand for its product. It is estimated that 4.1 million students are studying in different countries from their home countries and that that figure will rise to 7 million by 2020. We have top-class universities and an expanding market of people who want to come here, and we must capitalise on that.
	The Government have claimed that their visa policy is working because, according to the figures, there has been a marginal increase in the number of international students applying to come to British universities in the past year. In reality, there are considerable fluctuations, with an increase in numbers coming from China offsetting a huge fall of 25% in those coming from India. I have to say that Universities UK disputes some of these figures, but I do not want to get drawn into a debate between the Government and Universities UK. Everybody recognises that at a time when there is huge and growing demand, Britain is, at best, flatlining in terms of the number of recruits it is getting. In fact, Britain’s share of this expanding market has dropped from 10.8% to 9.9%. A shareholder of a company that had a fantastic product and an expanding market would not be very happy with its management if it were taking a declining share of that market.
	The crucial significance of that was highlighted by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It is not only about the immediate benefit but the long-term trading relationships that build up as a result. In the west midlands, we see that with the Tata brothers and their investment in Jaguar Land Rover, and with Lord Paul and his investment in schools and companies. There is a tremendous potential as regards the immeasurable contribution that will be made due to foreign students studying here.
	This comes at a time when universities are struggling for finance; they recognise that in these hard times they cannot be exempt. Recruitment of international students presents an opportunity for them to bring in extra money that unfortunately they cannot get from the Government because of the current financial problems. My local university, Wolverhampton, currently recruits 800 international students each year, but it estimates that with a fair and consistent visa process it could take another 500 a year from India and Sri Lanka alone. If they contribute £10,000 a year, which is a fairly minimal estimate, that would amount to £5 million more a year going into the local university and, above all, into the black country economy. I think that that situation would be reflected in other universities that I have spoken to.
	Earlier I mentioned the credibility test, which is undoubtedly one of the major problems. It is not only a regulatory problem but a process problem. One prospective Wolverhampton university student was rejected on the grounds that the amount of money he would spend in this country meant that he could get the same course at a domestic university in his own country. Imagine that happening in any other industry: if somebody told Jaguar, “You can’t export a Jaguar, because people can afford to buy one that’s made in their own country,” we would be up in arms and dancing in rage. In this case, however, nothing is said.

Virendra Sharma: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adrian Bailey: Yes, I will take one more intervention.

Virendra Sharma: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. On immigration policy and practices, I am sure that the caseloads of most MPs present will show that that kind of message deters genuine students from coming here. It means that the country loses finances and other resources as well as the individual student.

Adrian Bailey: I agree entirely.
	I have another example from Wolverhampton university. Six international students were refused visas even though they were sponsored by the Department for International Development. Moreover, when the Department wrote to the consulate, they were still rejected. If the Government cannot get their own people into the country through the Home Office system, what hope do so many young people from other countries have?
	In its reply to the Select Committee report, the Home Office argued that other countries include students in their net migration figures. There are variations from country to country and I do not want to get bogged down in that argument, but the crucial thing is that, whether they do that or not, they do not use the figures as the basis for their immigration policy. The Government’s target of reducing net migration to fewer than 100,000 can only be achieved by reducing numbers. The current drop to 157,000 has been achieved mainly by reducing numbers in the further education sector and by increased numbers going abroad. The Migration Advisory Committee calculates that to reach the target, non-EU student numbers need to be reduced by 87,000. That would be catastrophic to the finances of the FE and higher education sectors.
	In conclusion, a policy whose success relies on damaging a great export industry needs re-examination. This is an industry with a great brand, a huge demand for its product and incredible potential for boosting the economy, both locally and nationally, and it should be backed all the way. It is an industry that should be helped, not handicapped. The current visa regime, whatever the legitimacy of the broad objectives of the immigration policy, is not doing that. It is handicapping our universities. The answer is to change the policy and focus on the real immigration issues that are, I recognise, of great concern to the public.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Many Members want to speak, so may I gently suggest that they speak for up to 10 minutes? Unfortunately the opening speech lasted 23 minutes, so it has pushed us back. It was a very good speech—I am not knocking that—but I remind Members that we have to stick to the timetable because we need to fit in the Front Benchers as well.

Nadhim Zahawi: I shall attempt to take less than 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Ever since Erasmus came to study Greek at Cambridge 500 years ago, our universities have attracted the best and the brightest from around the world, but the world is changing. In the modern global marketplace, we have no God-given right to a competitive advantage in higher education. We have to fight for it.
	As the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has said, there will be huge rewards for the British economy if we get this right. By 2020 the number of international students worldwide is set to grow to 7 million. Key strategic partners, such as Brazil and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf, have earmarked billions of dollars to spend on sending their students on scholarships abroad. This is a fast-growing market and if we want to win the global race we have to get serious about growing our market share.
	We know that the competition is serious. Could there be any better example of the extraordinary lengths to which our rivals will go than the French Government’s recent decision to relax the ban on teaching in the English language at French universities? Let us be clear: even though we enjoy a commanding position in the market, over the past 10 years our market share has remained pretty flat. Over the same period, our two most obvious competitors after the United States—namely Australia and Canada—have recorded significant increases. What are they doing differently?
	First, both countries present more attractive options for post-study work. Foreign students in Canada can work for up to three years after graduation, and in Australia they can work for up to two years, rising to three with a masters and four with a PhD. Crucially, they do not have to seek work with a Government-approved firm or on a Government-approved salary.
	The other key difference is that both countries distinguish between the temporary student inflow and long-term migrants when devising their borders policy. Australia has learned the hard way why that makes sense. When student visa rules were tightened up in response to political pressure in 2010, the Australian higher education sector posted a 2.7 billion Australian dollar loss on goods and services that would otherwise have been purchased by overseas students. In the UK, we risk making the same mistake. In particular, the closure of the tier 1 post-study work route has broadcast the message around the world that foreign students are less welcome in the UK than they are in our competitor economies.
	I believe that the perception of a policy is just as important as the policy itself. Even though it did not come to it, the prospect of legitimate students at London Metropolitan facing deportation was deeply damaging. We cannot expect the casual 17-year-old reader of the China Daily who is thinking about studying abroad to distinguish between London Metropolitan university and the University of London.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is making some valid points. Does he agree that one of the key things that must come out of this debate is a clear message to students in India, China and other emerging economies with a lot of growth that the UK is open, that there are no caps or limits, and that they can come here if they go to an accredited establishment, can speak English and have the funding?

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right that the message has to be that we are open for business. Indeed, the latest figures for 2010-11 and 2011-12 show that all the Russell group universities
	apart from three posted positive increases. There is some good news, but I hope that this debate will further inform the Government and the Home Office as to what else we can do to enhance the situation.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Although I agree with my hon. Friend that we should give the message that we are open to legitimate students, will he also concede that this route has been abused in the past and that, equally, we have to give a message that we will be robust with those people who intend to exploit our good will as a route into the country?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend is spot on in saying that we have to be robust and I will deal with that later. She is absolutely right to say that we have to carry the good will of the British people with us and demonstrate rigour in the immigration system and our border controls in order to be able to send a message to those areas that are crucial to our exports.
	I want to return to the point that perception is reality and the example of the young student reading the China Daily. Fortunately, we know exactly what the problem is. With unprecedented unanimity, all five parliamentary Committees that have looked into this issue agree that the Government’s net migration target puts our borders policy on a collision course with our ambitions for higher education.
	Political targets are an essential part of the democratic process. They tell the electorate what we are about and what our values are. However, targets are not an end in themselves, but a tool to measure the success of broader policy aims. The Government’s net migration target is about building an immigration system that works for Britain—one that delivers economic benefits while addressing long-standing public concerns about immigration. However, if we are trying to meet that target by discouraging a group who provide an obvious economic benefit, who are disproportionately less likely to settle here and who, of all migrant groups, attract the least public concern, something is wrong with the target.
	I want immigration politics to be taken out of our higher education system. For that to happen, we must take international students out of the targets.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Should we not be explaining to the public in more detail what the net migration figure is made up of and disaggregating it? We can debate whether student numbers should be taken out, but clearly we must explain each of the components, because that is not widely understood.

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The disaggregation and further decimation of that information—

Chris Bryant: Dissemination.

Nadhim Zahawi: Dissemination, I apologise. I will get my English right eventually. I only arrived here in 1978. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: It is a Latin word.

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
	We can do three things to solve this problem. First, we must continue to come down hard on immigration fraud. The Government are right to deal robustly with those who abuse the student route. The fact that we have closed down more than 500 bogus colleges since the election shows how easy it has been to exploit the student visa system in recent years. If we want to carry the public with us, it is vital to maintain public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system.

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about bogus colleges, but does he have sympathy for the students who applied to enter this country to study at those colleges and who have had a very bad time through no fault of their own because they were duped into a very bad system? The system has changed a bit, but should we not have a more humanitarian approach to those people who, after all, are victims?

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that innocents get caught out in those situations. The best way to deal with the problem is to close down the colleges that are abusing the system and the students. Indeed, I spoke about London Metropolitan university in his constituency earlier and the perception that there is the forced deportation of legitimate students from this country.
	Secondly, we must be more intelligent about where the risks and the opportunities lie for us. I hope that Ministers will listen to this point carefully. In targeting tier 4 visas, the UK Border Agency already distinguishes between high and low-risk students. There are face-to-face interviews for students who are considered to be high risk.
	In my opinion, that should work the other way around and we should give the red-carpet treatment to the kind of students we want to attract to our country. For example, female students from the Gulf states are likely to have lower English language proficiency and are more likely to want to bring their spouses and children with them. If we want to see reform in the Gulf states, those are exactly the kind of students we need to attract. However, under the current rules, their dependants are obliged to return home every six months to renew their visa, and after 11 months the student must do the same. In Australia, Canada and America, dependants can apply for a visa that covers the whole study period. We do not need to rewrite the rule book; we just need to have more common sense and flexibility where our national interests are concerned.
	Finally, we need a cross-party consensus to neutralise the political fallout. No Government want to be accused of fiddling the figures, particularly on a policy area as combustible as immigration. We need to present a united front when standing up for British economic interests. That is why I am sharing a platform with my colleagues from the Labour party on this motion.
	I came into politics to get politics out of the way of British businesses that want to grow. Elsewhere in the economy, the Government have done great things to cut red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. We must extend the same freedoms and opportunities to our higher education sector. I commend the motion to the House.

Paul Blomfield: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), just as it was to speak alongside him last September at the Conservative party conference, where we made the same points and received a good reception.

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Gentleman is always welcome.

Paul Blomfield: I am not sure that I will make a habit of it. We made the point then and we make it again today that there is much cross-party unity on this issue. The fact that the motion has been sponsored by Members from all three main parties is a sign of that. From my discussions with Government Members, I am sure that, were they not tied by the responsibilities of office, many more of them would be joining us in support of the motion.
	The case that we are making today was perhaps most powerfully put in an article in the Financial Times in May 2012 under the headline, “Foreign students are key to UK prosperity”. The author wrote:
	“Britain’s universities are a globally competitive export sector and well-placed to make a greater contribution to growth. With economic growth at a premium, the UK should be wary of artificially hobbling it.”
	The article continued:
	“Now that the government has clamped down on the problem of bogus colleges”—
	from my perspective, the last Government did that too—
	“there is scope to take legitimate students out of the annual migration targets… Indeed, that is what our main competitors in the global student market already do.”
	I do not disagree with a word in the entire article and I do not think that any of my hon. Friends would. Who was the author? It was the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who is now head of the No. 10 policy unit. I quote from that article not to score a debating point, but to demonstrate the breadth of support for the motion.
	At the outset of the debate, it is worth emphasising that international students are important not just because of their financial contribution, but because they add to the intellectual vitality of our campuses; they are vital to the viability of many courses, particularly in the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths; they contribute to the cutting-edge research that gives the UK a unique edge in international markets; and they give UK students the chance to learn alongside people from every other major country, which is extraordinarily good preparation for the transnational environment in which our graduates will work. As has been pointed out, international students form relationships and a fondness for this country that will win us contracts and influence as they become leaders back home.
	Those are huge advantages for Britain, but let us put them to one side and look at the hard-nosed economic case. International students bring £8 billion into the UK economy each year. Higher education is a major industry and a major export earner. Some people ask, “What about the costs?” Indeed, the Minister made that point on the all-party parliamentary university group at one point. I discussed it with the university of Sheffield,
	which said, “Fair point. We ought to look at that”, and it commissioned Oxford Economics to undertake the first ever independent cost-benefit analysis of the contribution of international students. As an independent study I expected it to be quite rigorous, although I did not realise how rigorous. Oxford Economics did not just look at health, education and use of public services; it went to the nth degree and looked at traffic congestion and every conceivable indirect cost. It concluded that the annual net benefit to our city’s economy is £120 million. That is worth about 6,000 much-needed jobs in the city, not just in universities but in restaurants, shops, transport, construction and more besides.
	The Government have damaged our ability to recruit by including international students in net migration targets. That is not a statistical argument but a fundamental point because in doing so, they have put international students at the heart of the immigration debate. It is no good saying, as the Minister might later and the Home Office did this week in its response to the report by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, that there is no cap on student numbers—[Interruption.]The Minister says from a sedentary position that there is not, but if the Government have a target for reducing immigration and they include international students in that, such a policy leads them to celebrate cutting the number of international students coming to the UK. Indeed, the Minister did just that a couple of weeks ago when the fall in net migration was announced by celebrating the drop in numbers of 56,000 international students year on year.
	The Minister will point out that within those figures the number of university visas rose slightly while the real fall was in private college and further education student numbers, but that in itself should be a cause for worry not celebration. Not only are those students valuable in themselves, those courses are pathways into higher education and a fall in numbers is an indication of the problems we are storing up for the future. Conservative estimates suggest that some 40% of students going to universities in the UK go through those routes, and we should worry about that future impact.
	On other occasions, the Government have argued that numbers are holding up, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) clearly pointed out, holding up is not good enough. We do not want to stand still in a growing market, which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recognised will double by 2025. That is another £8 billion in export earnings for the UK and another 6,000 jobs in Sheffield, yet the Home Office is frustrating that ambition.
	The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) mentioned Brazil—one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Under their Science Without Borders programme, the Brazilian Government are spending $2 billion over four years on sending 100,000 of their brightest young people to study abroad at undergraduate and postgraduate level. They want them to go to the best universities in the world, and those are in the UK.
	A group of 2,143 Brazilian students who wanted to come to the UK have been prevented by inflexible visa rules. They are high-achieving students who wanted to study undergraduate STEM courses, but they needed
	to improve their English before starting. Current rules prevent them from staying in the UK after completing an English language course, and they would have had to return to Brazil and reapply for a new visa before starting their courses. As a result of those rules and the Home Office’s refusal to change them, 1,100 of those students are now going to the US and 600 to Australia, where they are welcome to study English and stay on for their degree course. Of the original 2,143 students, only 43 are applying to come to the UK this September. The value to the country of that cohort was £66 million. That has been lost because of Home Office inflexibility, and with it, considerable good will.

Richard Bacon: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman and I commend him for his work with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). He reminds me of a story in the Financial Times which, when describing the stupidity of the Home Office stated:
	“If the Home Office were a horse it would have been shot by now.”
	Despite the fact that the Home Office has been split up into an interior ministry and the Ministry of Justice, it still evinces extraordinary stupidity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most extraordinary aspects of that stupidity is that the STEM subjects, which this country needs so badly, in many universities across the country can be sustained in sufficient numbers only if we include foreign students?

Paul Blomfield: I absolutely agree with that point, which I raised earlier in passing. I commend the hon. Gentleman on initiating an Adjournment debate some time ago. I know he feels passionately about this subject, as many of us do.
	To allow other hon. Members to contribute, I will draw my remarks to a close by making a couple of points. Including students in net migration targets distorts the policy debate on immigration and focuses on the migration that concerns nobody. More importantly, as has been said, it damages the opportunity for growth in one of our most important and successful industries. Five Select Committees of both Houses are agreed on the issue, and as we debate the matter, those in the other place are also considering it when discussing a report by one of its Select Committees. This is too important for the Home Office to dig its heels in, and I suspect that in his heart the Minister knows that. I urge him to go away from today’s debate, look again at the inclusion of students in our net migration targets, and send a clear message to the world that it is not just about what we say but about what we do, and that we are open for business.

Gavin Barwell: I pay tribute to all three previous speakers, who have set out clearly the arguments relevant to this debate, and I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on securing it.
	Back in the autumn, in his speech to the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister set out an overall mission for the Government, to ensure that this country can win in the global race in which we are engaged. I strongly support that message and have a lot of time for
	it. We as politicians are sometimes guilty of telling people what they want to hear, but this is actually quite an uncomfortable message because in reality, the world in which we live is not easy and Britain has to earn its living within it.
	As well as congratulating the three Members who have spoken so far, I express sympathy for the Minister, for whom I have a high regard. It is his job to balance the Government’s overall mission with what the hon. Member for West Bromwich West acknowledged is our clear task of addressing the public’s concern about levels of migration into this country in recent years—not an easy thing to do. When my constituents communicate with me they sometimes seem to think that the challenges we face are easy to resolve, but the reality of politics is that a lot of these issues are difficult and sometimes point us in conflicting directions. There is also a fundamental conflict between the need in electoral politics for simplicity of message when trying to communicate what our party would do in government, and the complexity of the issues we need to deal with—that point was alluded to in some of the earlier speeches.
	Let me say a little about what my constituents think about immigration, which I think is relevant to the debate. I represent a part of south London that is changing rapidly demographically, and it will not be long before no ethnic community is in a majority in the London borough of Croydon, nor will it ever be again. Migration is an issue of real concern to my constituents, particularly because the UK Border Agency has a significant presence in Croydon in Lunar house. Many of my constituents have recently been through the asylum or immigration processes, and I have several thousand constituents who worked for the two units into which the agency has been broken. A lot of my constituents are concerned about the pace of change, and I spend a lot of time talking to them on the doorstep about those concerns. However, I have never heard a constituent express to me a concern about bright people from around the world coming to study at our universities, or about international companies that want to invest in the UK and create businesses, bringing some of their managers and employees to the UK as part of that investment into our economy.
	However, I hear a lot of concern about low-skill migration into the EU, which many of my constituents believe—rightly or wrongly—has made it more difficult for them or their children to get work and has depressed wages in sectors of our economy. There is a great deal of concern about unlimited migration from within the EU, and the effect of allowing into the EU countries from eastern Europe, which I strongly support—the concern is about the principle of free movement when the EU incorporates a series of states that are at different levels economically.
	There is also huge concern about our failure to control our borders effectively. When I report to my constituents on the Government’s progress in reducing net migration, they are almost universally inclined not to believe the figures, because their perception is that the figures do not include people who are here illegally. On migration policy, therefore, I am most keen for the Government to take more action than they are taking to deal with people who are in this country who should not be here.

Nicola Blackwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gavin Barwell: I certainly will.

Nicola Blackwood: Does my hon. Friend agree—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady has just walked into the Chamber. Normally Members would give it a little bit longer before they intervene. On this occasion she can do so, if Mr Barwell wants to give way.

Gavin Barwell: indicated assent.

Nicola Blackwood: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are very kind, as is my hon. Friend.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of exit checks could be important? In that way, we would know not only how many people are coming into the country, but how many people are going out. One of our biggest problems in developing immigration policy is poor data.

Gavin Barwell: That is something we could consider. The key is building public confidence in the system.

Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Barwell: If I can make progress, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
	I will not go into too much detail on students because the previous hon. Members who made speeches set the situation out clearly, but the UK gains four clear benefits from international students, the first of which is economic. We have heard the figures for the UK as a whole, but the Mayor of London’s office tells me that the economic benefit to London, my city, is about £2.5 billion a year.
	The second benefit is to the experience of our students when they are at university. I was lucky enough to attend the university of Cambridge, and can attest to the benefit I gained from studying with pupils from around the world.
	The third benefit, which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) strongly communicated, is to what is frequently referred to as the UK’s soft power. A 2011 Select Committee on Home Affairs report identified that 27 foreign Heads of State had been educated in the UK. That is a difficult benefit to quantify, but an important one to this country.

Chris Bryant: Unfortunately, that includes the Head of State of Syria.

Gavin Barwell: It does include Syria—clearly, educating Heads of State will not be a benefit universally, but the hon. Gentleman would agree that, in general, having people in leading positions in foreign countries, whether in Governments, the diplomatic service, the military or the business community, is a benefit to the UK.

Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Barwell: I will take one more intervention because I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak.

Jim Cunningham: No one would disagree with a number of the hon. Gentleman’s points. For the record, I have always had straight dealings with the Minister in relation to cases I have pursued. Would it not be better if students from abroad were excluded from the immigration numbers? On restoring the manufacturing base, companies in the west midlands such as Jaguar Land Rover will need more and more highly skilled people, whether from abroad or from within. German companies such as Bosch and a large number of universities are in Coventry and the west midlands. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a better approach would be to exclude students from abroad from our figures to help our exports?

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Gentleman finished his intervention just before the bell, I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: It was just after the bell.

Gavin Barwell: I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point at the end of my speech, but on his point on skills, when there are skill needs in our economy, our starting point should be to ask, “Can we train people in this country who have not got work to do those jobs?” However, if there are high-skill gaps, we should of course bring people in if we need them.
	The fourth benefit of such migration, which has not been mentioned much, is the contribution to UK science and technology. I studied natural science at Cambridge and was on the Select Committee on Science and Technology for a period, so I feel passionately about this. Some 49% of people on taught postgraduate course in maths, engineering or computer science are international students—that figure has been mentioned. Cutting down on those numbers would have a massive effect on UK leadership in science. Sir Andre Geim, the Russian-born Nobel prize winner from the university of Manchester, has said that the identification of graphene would
	“probably not have happened if”
	he
	“had been unable to employ great non-EU PhD postdoctoral students”.
	Those are the four clear benefits, but there are problems. The Higher Education Statistics Agency provides figures for enrolments, not for visa applications—enrolments are the best measure. In 2011, there was a slight decline in applications for first-year places at university from non-EU applicants. Admittedly, the position is complex, with significant country variations—there was a big increase in applications from China, but a big decrease in applications from India. I should be grateful if the Minister would offer an explanation for those significant variations if he has time. Students from different parts of the world tend to apply for different courses. Indian students are more likely to apply for STEM courses, so those variations have an impact on universities. In 2012, for the first time in 10 years, the total number of non-EU postgraduate students fell.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) correctly identified the three issues we need to address, the first of which is bureaucracy and the process people must go through when they want to come here. I pay tribute to the Minister and the Home Secretary, because the decision to split the UKBA up into two organisations—one focuses on customer satisfaction and processing applications for people who want to come here, and the other focuses on the entirely different job of enforcement and removing people who should not be here—was the right decision, and a welcome one. However, there is more to do to improve the process and the experience people have when they apply.
	The second issue is the tone and the message we send out in debates on migration—that is not totally within the Government’s control, because we must also consider the tone of the migration debate in our media. The Government have recognised the importance of sending the message that the UK is open for business, as we saw during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to India.
	The third issue is policy. We have a target for reducing net migration and should ask who is included in it. One hon. Member has mentioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which has said that an equivalent reduction in all different forms of migration could reduce student migration by 87,000. I put it to the Minister that, in 2009-10, the National Audit Office identified that about 50,000 students looked as if their principal reason for coming here was work rather than study. All hon. Members would accept that there was significant abuse of the process. That happened through institutions— bogus colleges—but we all see what we might regard as serial students, meaning people who have come here and done a number of courses but still not reached undergraduate level. Clearly, their primary motivation for coming to this country is to work in the UK, whatever their visa application says. All hon. Members accept that there was potential to reduce the numbers without having an impact on the positive aspects we have discussed.
	On the long-term situation, the House has made its view clear on the policy, but I am interested in what the Conservative party will say in its next manifesto. As hon. Members have said, the sector has the potential to nearly double by 2020. At the moment, about 4.1 million around the world study in tertiary education abroad. The projection is that that will go up to 7 million by 2020. We should at least set ourselves the objective of maintaining our market share, which is currently about 13%. We have done the job of squeezing down on student migration abuse, but if our objective is to maintain or grow our market share and continue to recruit the people we want in this country, it will creep up over time.
	I support what my party had to say at the previous election. It was absolutely right to focus on this, and I think many Opposition Members recognise that. In the longer term, we need to think more clearly about how we differentiate to the public the kinds of immigration that we are looking to control—the bits that we do not think are good for the country and want to squeeze down on, both illegal immigration and immigration through the existing system. We should not get ourselves into a position where we are trying to control things that we all recognise are positive and good for the country. I wish the Minister, for whom I have a very high regard, the best of luck as he grapples with the
	difficult balance that has to be struck between ensuring that we win the global race, but address the legitimate concerns many of my constituents have about the level of immigration.

Andrew Smith: I would like to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and other colleagues on securing this important debate. He made some important points, as have all the subsequent speakers. It is good to see cross-party agreement emerging that we have to remove students from the immigration target in domestic policy.
	With two universities and numerous independent colleges in Oxford East, my constituents are among the hardest hit by the ill-judged policies on student visas and immigration that the Government have brought in. They have inflicted serious damage on the reputation and attractiveness of the UK, and on the economic and cultural contribution that overseas students, and those who teach them, make to our country. The Government’s policies amount to a perverse and stupid act of economic self-sabotage. They hit a part of our economy where Britain in general, and Oxford in particular, have a strong global strategic competitive advantage. There is a logical contradiction in the Government protesting that there is no cap on student numbers, while persisting in including student numbers in their overall target of reducing net immigration to tens rather than hundreds of thousands. They find it so difficult to control other areas of immigration, including illegal immigration, that there is continual downward pressure on student numbers.
	We are fortunate in Oxford to have many high-quality institutions. It shows how ludicrous this policy is if we imagine it being applied to another area; for example, to our Mini plant—to manufacturing, as opposed to educational exports. Imagine a Government who have an overall limit on manufacturing exports because they do not want too many foreigners getting their hands on our goods. As the number of BMW Minis being exported falls because overseas dealers worry that they will not be able to fulfil orders, the Prime Minister flies out to the far east and attempts to reassure people that while he is determined to bring down net manufacturing exports, there is no cap on the export of Minis! Such a policy would be barmy, way beyond swivel-eyed, and yet economically that is exactly what the cuts in overseas students amount to.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that it is simply no good for the Prime Minister to be going on these visits overseas supposedly to increase our exports when one of our very best exports, higher education, is being undermined by the Government’s policy?

Andrew Smith: Indeed. That the Prime Minister felt he had to say that was a tacit acknowledgement of the damage done to the UK’s reputation.

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is my understanding that applications from overseas students to Oxford university have gone up by 22%. Is the right hon. Gentleman not
	mis-characterising the objective of the policy, which is to cut down on bogus student applications while still allowing our higher education sector to thrive?

Andrew Smith: The problem is that not enough is being done to encourage it to thrive. As was pointed out earlier, Universities UK takes issue with some of the figures, but however we characterise them the current position is pretty flat. For a global market that is expanding so quickly, it simply is not good enough.
	Of course the closure of visa factories masquerading as colleges is a good thing, not least because of the impact on applicants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out. They damage the reputation of UK education as well as undermine legitimate immigration control, but it is important to understand that the way the Government and UKBA have gone about their wider changes have hit legitimate universities and colleges that are an enormously important source of intellectual capital, jobs and prosperity, both now and for the future, that is worth tens of billions of pounds.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned Oxford university. Its briefing for this debate points out:
	“The cumulative and frequent changes to Tier 4 policy guidance over the last few years have created increased anxiety amongst our current and prospective student body especially when some of the rule changes were applied retrospectively.”
	It goes on to say:
	“We have received feedback and comments from prospective students and institutions overseas about the numerous UKBA rule changes over the last few years that indicate it may be a determining factor in students choosing to study elsewhere.”
	The Government have to understand that those damaging effects have an impact at a time of intense international competition, in particular for the highest calibre of undergraduates, post-graduates and researchers. The funding shortfall for postgraduates, especially compared with the United States, makes it an increasing challenge to recruit and retain the best. Oxford university makes it clear that it supports the recommendations of the Select Committee reports referred to in the motion.
	Let us also recognise that the damaging impact of Government policy has not been confined to universities and university students. Indeed, the effects have been even more serious for independent colleges, whose educational and economic contribution rarely gets the credit it deserves, and seems to be totally ignored by this Government. It is deeply ironic that a Government with an ideological obsession about liberating schools for home students from state control are hammering private colleges that support thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of overseas earnings.

Nicola Blackwood: As a fellow Oxford MP, the right hon. Gentleman will know that I share some of his concerns about student reforms, but it is important that the debate continues with factual information. The 22% figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is based on data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and is used in both the Universities UK and Million+ briefings. The points that he was just making are important, because the falls we have seen are in the FE college and private college sectors. The main concerns from the university have
	been about the frequent changes to student visas, which are much more of a difficulty for both students and the university. Perhaps he might like to comment on those issues, as they are the main challenges that are actually faced by the university’s students.

Andrew Smith: I will take those comments as warm and strong support for the points I have made about the damage the changes to the visa regime have done.
	The Government are denying independent colleges a level playing field and disadvantaging them in a number of respects. These include: the 2011 two-year cap on international student numbers; all the uncertainties of the twice-yearly Highly Trusted Sponsor renewal application; the denial of part-time work for students either in term time or holidays; student exclusion from the new post-study work schemes for PhD and MBA graduates; and the fact that unlike university students, PhD students at independent colleges are not exempt from Tier 4’s five-year time limit, so they cannot do a first degree in the UK before their PhD.
	It is little surprising that international student enrolments on higher education courses at independent colleges fell by over 70% between 2011 and 2012, with a fall of 46% in college sector visas for the year ending March 2013. This has destroyed tens—possibly hundreds—of college businesses, cost thousands of jobs and resulted in a loss of income to the families accommodating students and to the local businesses and communities within which they spend their money.
	I strongly support the motion. I hope that the Government will listen to the Select Committees that have come to the same view and take international students out of the migrations statistics used to steer UK immigration policy. I hope that Ministers will remove the unfair penalties imposed on independent colleges, work in partnership with them to develop longer-term, highly trusted accreditation and promote the contribution these colleges make. I also urge them more generally to think further and positively about how to encourage, not discourage, overseas students at all levels who want to come here, as those students invigorate universities and other education institutions and generate lots of overseas earnings, jobs and economic demand, which people here desperately need. Doing so would rebuild Britain’s reputation in the world as somewhere that welcomes international students and researchers and recognises their enormous potential contribution to our culture and economy—which, let us remember, is to the benefit of us all.

Damian Hinds: In the media, international students at our universities are generally seen though one of two lenses: the positive one is that they are a cash-cow, premium product that historically has cross-subsidised domestic students in our universities; the negative one is that, because of this, they might end up getting too many places at our universities, thus keeping out some of our home-grown talent. Both are completely the wrong way of thinking about international students. This is a huge growth market in the world and vital to our economic growth.
	Education ought to be for us a focus sector, alongside life sciences, advanced manufacturing, the digital and creative industries, professional services and tourism. It is also a market in which, thankfully, we have strong competitive advantages. We have some of the best brand names in the business: Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, St Andrews, Birmingham, Manchester, Queen’s Belfast, the London School of Economics—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I can name check others, if anyone wants me to.

Julian Smith: Leeds.

Damian Hinds: Thank you.
	All in all, about one fifth of the top 100 universities and about one fifth of the top 50 business schools in the world are ours, and of course we have that great asset, the English language.
	The sector has other advantages. The first and most obvious is export earnings and the jobs it supports in this country, but it is also important in the battle for talent, in bringing into the country the people we need to help our economy succeed. It also helps with what people have called soft power—or, as I would prefer to describe it, the promotion of Britain abroad and the fostering of business and cultural links throughout the world.
	The sector has several secondary advantages. For one, unusually among the key growth sectors, its employment and economic growth prospects are well distributed throughout the UK, not concentrated in one place, such as London. Secondly, university rankings depend on having a certain proportion of foreign students at a university, because international rankings consider that if a university is not good enough to attract foreign students, it is probably not very good. Thirdly, having a vibrant, cosmopolitan HE sector helps to reinforce several other growth strategy objectives, particularly to bring forward research and development in key sectors and to make this country the headquarters location of choice for multinationals.
	As many hon. Members have said, this is a growing world market. In 1980, about 1 million students were enrolled in institutions outside their country of origin, but by 2010 that figure was 3.3 million. We know that more recently the compound annual growth rate trend—obviously it has moved a bit in the last couple of years—has been about 7%, which is a strong growth rate for an attractive industry. According to the McKinsey report on the seven long-term priorities for the UK, if we can hold our share—grow it as the market grows—and harvest just half of the benefit, it would be worth an additional 80,000 jobs in the country by 2030.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that holding that share is becoming more difficult, because of the challenge from countries such as Australia and Canada, and that the Government should be strengthening our universities’ ability to attract overseas students, not making it more difficult, as they are doing at present?

Damian Hinds: The hon. Lady brilliantly anticipates my next point. Of course, she is absolutely correct. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) said, we are, to coin a phrase, in a global race,
	and we are not the only ones who have spotted that this is an attractive sector and who are doing things differently, as we will continue do in order to protect and growth our own share. The most obvious competitive set are the Anglophone countries, led by the United States, but also including Canada and Australia. Increasingly, however, non-English speaking countries are offering English-speaking courses. The third competitor is potentially the biggest, and that is the choice of staying at home. In China, India, Nigeria and elsewhere in the world, there is a big business opportunity in attracting students from those countries to stay in institutions there. So, yes, we have to redouble our efforts all the time in order not only to forge ahead, but just to hold our own.
	We should be talking always about quality higher education, pre-higher education preparation and certified colleges. These institutions should not be selling visas; they must be selling education, and we know that there have been recent substantial abuses. The National Audit Office says that in 2009 up to 50,000 alleged students were here primarily to work, rather than study. We had this cadre of serial students who were forever renewing their visas without showing any substantial progress in their studies. Clearly, if we are serious about curbing immigration in what has become a chaotic situation and about reducing the numbers and getting rid of abuse, we have to tackle the student visa route.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the abuses under the old system, but there are two sides to tackling the problem—tightening up the rules for people coming in, and removing those abusing the system—but the NAO concluded that not enough was being done in the latter department. Does he agree that the Government need to make that more of a priority?

Damian Hinds: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It must indeed be a clear priority.
	I welcome the action that the Government have taken. I do not think that everyone would agree, but I welcome the removal of the blanket two-year right to work for all graduates, because it looked a bit too much like a bribe to sweeten the degree. There is a role for it, however, in certain circumstances and categories, such as in subjects where there is a shortage—we talked about STEM subjects earlier—and for MBA students, who, by definition, will already have worked for several years and have done their first degree and who are valuable and mobile students.
	I welcome the removal of the right to work for private college students, the requirement to show real academic progress and, of course, the closure of bogus colleges. I also acknowledge that the Government have put in place a sensible and proportionate regime for student visitors. A lot of people have thrown statistics around, but overall it appears that the falls in the numbers have been concentrated primarily in those sectors and parts of the market where abuse was most prevalent. I also welcome the fact that there is no cap on the numbers of people coming to university. It is right that the Prime Minister goes out and gives that message, as we saw him doing recently at the KPMG offices—I think—in India, but it is a constant battle against possible perceptions. For example, the message on
	MBA student blogs in India is that Britain is not as welcoming a place—or not welcoming at all—as it once was.

Nicola Blackwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for that ongoing perception might be the efficiency, or lack thereof, of in-country UK Border Agency officials? With the expansion of credibility interviews, that will only increase. Some of the reports that I have heard about the reasons for people being turned down at interview—those where the decision was later overturned at appeal—are concerning. Does he agree that if we are to increase the caution with which we agree to visa applications, we should also increase the efficiency of UKBA in-country?

Damian Hinds: As always, my hon. Friend makes her point clearly and well. I do not have enough knowledge about the interview to comment, but overall, with or without a cap, and whatever happened last year or this year—we know that there is no cap, and we know that the figures look broadly okay—it nevertheless remains the case that, given the intense scrutiny to which immigration numbers will rightly be subjected, how students are treated in those statistics must inevitably affect the extent to which we as a country seize this market opportunity in the years ahead.
	In one way it is blindingly obvious, but it is worth saying that not every student adds to immigration. In the steady state, so long as we are reasonably good at counting people leaving as well as those coming—

Chris Bryant: That is a big “if”.

Damian Hinds: We took over from Labour.
	So long as we are reasonably good at that, it is only growth in the numbers that will add to immigration. However, I would ask the Minister to look again and consider counting people towards net immigration only at the point at which they settle. The key counter-argument—in some ways it is quite strong—is that a student is a human being like any other, and if there is a net increase in their numbers, that is an increase in net immigration, which will lead to the same strain on housing, public services and so on as with any other type of immigration. I would argue that that is not quite true. I do not want to sound trivial about it, but one could argue, with some sense, that students do not take up quite as much residential living space as others and, being younger on average, they are—[Interruption.] I do not mean that students are smaller. I myself was thinner as an undergraduate—that is history—but I was thinking more about housing. As younger people, typically, students are probably less likely than the average person to make demands on the national health service, places at primary schools and so on.

Chris Bryant: It is an absolute pre-condition of any student visa that that person is unable to make any claims on the taxpayer or, therefore, the NHS.

Damian Hinds: I am conscious of the time and I do not want to get into a long debate about this, but any person in this country will be consuming public services to some extent—for example, roads—and is financed by the rest of us. In any case, broadly speaking we are making the same points.
	We could also mitigate those effects. Given that housing is particular issue, we could do that by requiring universities that want to expand to provide additional accommodation. Local areas that want to benefit from such economic growth should also have to be willing to accept the provision of extra accommodation, over and above residential housing.
	The truth is that there are downsides—additional strains and calls on public resources and residential accommodation—to having more people in the country. It is not without cost; it is a choice to be made. We have to weigh up the costs and downsides against the benefits that so many people have talked about—the revenues, the export earnings, the jobs that are created, the talent we can bring to this country and the strengthening of our links around the world. If, having made that calculation, we decide that this should be a focus area in contributing to our economic growth—I think the case is very strong —we must be bold in seizing that opportunity.

Sharon Hodgson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on opening this important debate, and I congratulate him and others on securing it.
	The wording of the motion says it all. Five parliamentary Committees—the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, as well as the Science and Technology Committee and the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education in the other place—have all arrived at the same conclusion and the same recommendation. They are united in their belief—it is a considered belief, based on the vast amount of evidence they have taken—that including students in net migration numbers is the wrong thing to do, for a number of reasons, and that the Government should reverse that decision. The reason for that belief is obvious. The students we are talking about are not migrant workers. They have paid to come to the UK to study. They have chosen to invest in the UK and are sponsored to remain only for the period of their studies.
	I speak as an MP for a constituency that benefits from the positive contribution that overseas students can make to university life and the wider community. According to the University of Sunderland’s annual review, more than 2,600 overseas students were enrolled in taught undergraduate or postgraduate courses last year. What does that mean for the university and the wider city? Those students are paying their fees, which are crucial to the university as a means of investing in the facilities and opportunities they can provide to all students, particularly as grants are repeatedly cut, but there are wider benefits too. Those students need places to live and therefore pay rent to local private landlords, usually through local letting agents. Those students need to eat and therefore spend money in local shops and restaurants. They probably need coats and gloves—they have probably also needed wellies over the last couple of years—to deal with the harsh north-east weather, and they will obviously buy those in local shops. Those students will also want to have a good time, as do
	students the world over, spending money in local cinemas, bars and clubs, and going to gigs, football matches and so on. They might even need books and stationery, which they will buy from local bookshops and stationers.
	According to evidence that the university submitted to the Home Affairs Committee when it considered this issue in 2011, overseas students bring an income to the university of £15 million in tuition fees and £1.5 million in accommodation fees. The university estimated the additional income to the city to be around £10 million a year. That figure is probably a conservative estimate, given that it amounts to only £385 a month or so for each student, and we know that many international students who come to the UK are from pretty wealthy families—after all, how else would they afford the large up-front fees that they have to pay? That is probably reflected in the revised estimate that I recently received from the university, of £37 million of total benefit.
	When international students come to the University of Sunderland, they do not just bring their wallets; they bring a wealth of culture, which adds to the diversity of the university’s campus. That can be seen in the development of the various student societies—they include the Hong Kong and Malaysian society, the Nigerian society, and the middle east and north Africa group, to name but a few—but it is a two-way street. The university encourages international students to experience the culture that the north-east has to offer, such as Washington old hall in my constituency, which has an obvious attraction for students from the United States, and the various other cultural and historical activities that the city of Sunderland and the whole region have to offer.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is making an important point about students in the north-east adding to diversity—a diversity that would not necessarily exist without them. Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that the number of new entrants—particularly new international student entrants—is reducing. Does she agree that the Government are being a bit complacent and are not factoring in the positive contributions that students make to areas such as ours?

Sharon Hodgson: That is exactly the nub of the matter. We have to factor in those extra elements, including the contribution that such students make to the local economy, as well as—I will come to this point—the long-term benefits from those relationships and links in the years to come.
	Another great project at Sunderland university is the international buddying programme, in which students at the university pair up with international students to provide them with advice on what they can experience in the region. The programme enriches the experiences not only of the international students but of their buddies from this country. When the students are visiting regional tourist attractions such as Washington old hall or Durham cathedral, they inevitably spend money in the local and regional economy.
	I understand that some programmes run by the student union have involved international students volunteering with local community organisations such as Age UK. This all contributes to giving students a great experience while they are over here, which means that they will develop an affinity with the UK, and with the city and region in which they stay. We have to remember that
	many of these students come from well-connected families, and that among them will be the political leaders and captains of industry of tomorrow. It is therefore crucial to our long-term diplomatic and economic relationships with their home countries that we warmly welcome these young people, rather than making them feel unwanted, as this Government are undoubtedly doing at the moment.
	That is particularly important in the north-east, where international links and trade and exports are fundamental parts of the economy. The independent “North-east Economic Review” recently commissioned by the local enterprise partnership and authored by my noble colleague Lord Adonis reported that the north-east is one of the leading exporting areas of the UK, with over 1,500 companies exporting goods. In 2011 and 2012, it was the only region in England to achieve a positive balance of trade in goods, with figures of £2.5 billion in 2011 and £4.8 billion in 2012. So we do well, but we are reliant in many ways on orders and investment from overseas companies. The role that our universities play in keeping and creating those relationships is crucial.
	One country that often comes up when we talk about the need to get more people over to the UK is China. The University of Sunderland works hard to attract Chinese students, as do other higher education institutions. I was lucky enough to visit China in September 2011. I visited the offices of the University of Sunderland in Beijing, where I was able to talk to the local staff there about the work they do. Their biggest concerns by far were the new visa requirements, coupled with the way in which some Chinese students they had recruited were treated at customs when they arrived here in the UK.
	Both those factors are a source of humiliation to students. What will happen when word gets out that the UK does not want them and that it will put them through that kind of experience? Students who would have come to the UK, and who might well have come to Sunderland, will go elsewhere in the world. They want to learn and develop their English, and they will go to the USA, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, all of which exclude students from their migrant figures and are currently welcoming them with open arms. Those countries are benefiting from our loss.
	While I was in China I also visited Suzhou, where the University of Liverpool has established a joint campus with a local university, with the aim of providing opportunities for UK students to visit an economically and culturally significant area of China as well as providing a form of embassy or advert for its UK institution. I met a young man from Suzhou who had been studying computer science at Liverpool and is now doing his postgraduate qualification at University College London. That shows that the process definitely works. The development of more such partnerships and recruitment drives in a country with which we desperately need to build links is surely at risk, given the way in which this Government’s attitude towards overseas students is now seen in that country, and undoubtedly in others.
	The University of Sunderland posed two questions to me, which I believe cut to the heart of this debate. I would be grateful if the Minister could address them in his response—if indeed he is listening to what I am saying. First, can the Government meet their net migration targets without reducing the number of international students coming to study at British universities? My suspicion is that they probably cannot, and are therefore
	knowingly and willingly accepting the devastating economic impact that this policy will have on localities and regions, particularly those with a track record of success in global enterprise.
	Secondly, what is more important to this Government: economic growth and sustainability or a falsely painted picture of immigration and immigrants that includes those who choose to come and invest in the UK and bring substantial short and long-term economic and social advantage to our country? I am sure the Minister will say that it is the former, but actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this Government firmly suggest that their priority is political headlines, rather than what is right for our higher education sector and for the country.
	Of course we must tackle bogus colleges and bogus students. Everyone agrees on that. I am afraid, however, that such action is being used as a smokescreen to justify this damaging and short-sighted policy. Well, the Government are fooling nobody. We all know that this is about using overseas students to reduce the net migration figures in order to fulfil a promise made by the Prime Minister that he would otherwise be unable to fulfil. That is a disgrace, and it must stop. I hope that this debate will spur a change in policy and a more grown-up and thought-through approach. This Government are well-practised in the art of the U-turn, and I hope that we will see one being performed on this issue sooner rather than later, before too much more damage is done to our universities and our international reputation.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that we are having this debate, as it will enable us to draw attention to a number of issues relating to overseas students in this country. We should start from the premise that the students who come here to study and work are a big help to our economy, to local economies and to the experience of UK students in our higher education institutions.
	London First, in calling for the removal of students from the UK migration target, states:
	“Taking students out of the migration target would be the strongest positive message that the government could send out but, if this remains too politically difficult, then a more measured and consistent approach to addressing applications for visas would be a good first step.”
	Many of us have met students in other countries who are considering coming to the UK to study, and discovered that they are put off by a number of factors. One is the complication and cost of applying for a visa, as well as the delays that often occur in that process. I know that the Minister is aware of those problems, and I look forward to hearing his response to this point. Those students are also put off by the image that has been created by the treatment of overseas students here.
	I am not going to defend the bogus colleges that purported to teach the English language to people in London and other cities. They often short-changed their students, many of whom ended up as victims of a particularly nasty system. It is right to prosecute those who were perpetrating that fraud against those students, but we should have more sympathy with those genuine students who came here thinking that they were going to be taught English only to find that their college was a
	sham. They lost out, and some of them were deported even though they had done nothing wrong. Behind every statistic lies a human story, and we should look at the human story as well as the overall statistics when we deal with these issues.
	The National Union of Students has pointed out in its advice on this debate that, following a perception study, 40% of respondents to an NUS survey of 909 international students carried out last year said that they would not advise a friend or relative from their home country to come to the UK to study. We cannot afford that perception to be spread abroad. This debate is therefore important, and the Minister’s response to it and the way in which he handles this issue are possibly even more important. It we want to remain a place to which students want to come, we will have to ensure that they are treated properly and that they are allowed to work at the end of their course, particularly if they pursued a semi-vocational or professional qualification. If they cannot complete a period of work at the end of their course, the prospect of studying here will be less attractive and the prospect of studying elsewhere will become more so. The UK loses out as a result.
	As I said in a couple of interventions, I represent a constituency that includes London Metropolitan university, which has been put through the mill in media treatment and with funding problems like no other university in this country, so I would like to say a few things in its support. As a university, it is an amalgamation of many institutions, as most of them are, and it has given many people the huge opportunity to become the first in their family history to get into higher education. It has an unprecedented record of bringing in students from minority ethic communities and diverse backgrounds, and it should be applauded and complimented for that.
	Although the name is relatively new, London Metropolitan university is an amalgamation of a number of local institutions in north-east London that started serving the community in 1848. It is not exactly a Johnny-come-lately, although of course the situation has changed a great deal. Two things have happened. First, the Higher Education Funding Council for England decided some years ago to fine the university a great deal of money, but after a lot of representations, that money is now being repaid and the university is coping with that.
	Secondly, on 29 August last year, it had revoked its tier 4 licence and highly trusted status required to recruit non-European Economic Area students. That placed 2,000 international students at risk, including the current student union president and members of the student union executive. A survey done by the United Kingdom Border Agency claimed that there was a lack of attendance and monitoring, insufficient English language testing and overstaying of student visas. The students concerned were told that they had 60 days to find another institution or they would have to return to their own country. That resulted in a great deal of debate, including an urgent question in this Chamber and statements from the Government. The university sought High Court action against UKBA and was granted a hearing last September, when Mr Justice Irwin granted an order allowing all current international students to stay at the university until the end of the academic year 2013; judicial reviews are still continuing.
	Since then, there has been a great deal of discussion and negotiation between UKBA and the university, and procedures have been put in place. My concern was that a lot of wholly innocent international students were put under a great deal of stress and pressure. The university was not allowed to recruit international students for the forthcoming academic year, and that obviously has an impact on the local economy and on the university itself. I hope that the Minister can provide us with some hope—if not here today, perhaps by correspondence—that the negotiations will result in the revocation of the original ban on recruitment and that a number of overseas students can be recruited in the forthcoming academic year.
	I would be grateful if the Minister would answer some brief questions. A number of students who transferred to other institutions last September—nine months ago—still await a decision on their visa applications even though they were submitted in good time. Two additional cases, where students who completed their studies in February 2013 and put in applications for visa extensions, are still pending and have not been answered. That is a very long time to wait. In addition, there are many students who are no longer in contact with the London Met university, yet the Home Office was supposed to establish a casework team in Sheffield to deal with applications from both current and former students of London Met. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly what has happened about that; is the Home Office still in touch with those students?
	I want London Met to be a successful university. I want it to be able to recruit international students as it did before, and I want those students to benefit from the experience of living in north and east London while they are studying there. I also want to highlight all that they bring to the university and all that they—and, indeed, the local economy—gain from it. The damage done to the international reputation of higher education by the handling of London Met is pretty serious indeed, on top of all the other problems that the Select Committee has rightly pointed out. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me how many students have actually been removed from the country as a result of the decisions concerning London Met.
	The Home Office uses the words “probationary licence granted” for the restoration of tier 4 status, but there is nothing in legislation that talks about probationary licences. An institution either has tier 4 status grade A or a most-trusted status, which we obviously hope will be restored. I do not know where the word “probationary” comes from. Is a new point of law being introduced?
	Finally, will the Minister provide assurances that the 20 London Met students who submitted passports nine months ago and who now wish to leave the country will receive an answer in the next 28 days? In all fairness, those students spent a great deal of money coming to this country, many of them are from poor families who scrimped and saved to send them here, and they had to go through a dreadful experience. We want to move on. We want international students back at the university and the university to be thriving and providing good-quality education. That is the message I want to give. Our local community benefits from that university, and it frequently benefits from the community when community events and many other things are held there. We want it to be a good place of learning. Every colleague who represents
	a constituency with a university or a higher education institution in it wants that for those institutions. It is up to the Minister to ensure that we continue to recruit overseas students and that they benefit from their learning experience in this country.

Chris Bryant: Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and all other Members who signed up to ensure that we had this afternoon’s debate. It is perhaps a sort of irony that the quality of the debate has been high, with an enormous degree of unanimity on the issues. I suspect that if the Chamber had been fuller, the debate might have been more partisan and there might have been less unanimity, but the debate we have had is a tribute to the way in which the argument has been advanced in several Select Committees and through the Select Committee process itself. Sometimes if we just look rationally at the facts, it is easier to reach a cross-party position.
	I studied abroad. I did part of my primary education in Spain; I studied theology at the Instituto Superior Evangélico de Estudios Teológicos in Argentina; so I understand the complications and difficulties of studying in other countries. I note that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), of whom I am particularly fond, referred to Erasmus, talking about what has happened since Erasmus came here in the 16th century. It is interesting because when Erasmus first came here to study at Cambridge university in 1506, he did not complete a whole year so I do not think he would have been included in the net migration target. When he came again, in 1511, staying until 1515, he taught as the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge university. In that case, he would have come here under the tier 2 visa, which would have been completely different and not the subject of this afternoon’s debate.

Andrew Smith: Does my hon. Friend think that the Home Office still has Erasmus’s passport?

Chris Bryant: That is a point well made.
	Another hon. Member—I cannot remember who it was—referred to the fact that many Heads of State from around the world have studied in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] It was the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who speaks sanely and sensibly on many of these issues. As he said, some studied at Sandhurst, as many have been military leaders as well. It must surely be good, in terms of our soft power, that the Heads of State of Denmark, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and many other countries have studied in the United Kingdom.
	I would also point to those who have had a more courageous political career, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, and, for that matter, to the large number of people who have come to the United Kingdom, studied here, stayed on and ended up teaching here, gaining Nobel prizes in classic instances such as Sydney Brenner, César Milstein and Aaron Klug. Perhaps most interesting of all, T S Eliot, now thought of as the quintessentially British poet of the 20th century, was originally born in the United States of America, came to study here at the beginning of the first world war and ended up staying
	here for the rest of his life. Perhaps it was because he had the experience of being a migrant student that he ended up writing so much about travelling and the difficulty of living in other cultures.

Jason McCartney: The hon. Gentleman just mentioned Sandhurst, and I ask him not to forget the royal naval training college at Darmouth and the RAF training college at Cranwell, which I attended. During my flight officer training we often thought it was the Omani officer, with the overseas costs, who actually funded the training costs of the British RAF officer cadets.

Chris Bryant: Indeed, that is an important point. If we look at the number of people from Latin American militaries—air force, navy or army—who have historically had the Prussian tradition of military and then come to the UK to train in a British environment and completely changed their attitude towards democracy and the way in which the military operate in a democratic society, we see another positive aspect of people coming from other parts of the world to study here.
	Many hon. Members have rightly referred to the economic benefit of international students coming to study in this country. The Government estimate in 2009, produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, was that this country’s higher education exports came to a value of some £8 billion and could rise to £16.9 billion by 2025. That is one of the most significant areas of growth potential in the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, the University of Sheffield has produced an important report on the economic benefits that can arise from international students coming here. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to the importance to the north-east of not only people studying and paying for their courses—many British people do not understand that international students pay fully for their course and, indeed, pay over the odds compared with British people, doing so in advance—but all the other benefits that come to the local economy. According to the University of Sheffield’s study, the relevant figure for Sheffield is £120 million a year.
	In addition, we need to consider the wide range of subjects studied. Some people want to say, “It is just about the brightest and the best coming to the United Kingdom.” I wholly agree with those who have said that it was absolutely right for the Government to deal with issue of bogus colleges, but it is not just university degrees at Oxford and Cambridge that we should be concerned with; this is also about postgraduate studies at many different universities and the English language. I would prefer people who are learning English around the world to learn about taps, not faucets, and about pavements, not sidewalks, because I would prefer them to have a British understanding of the English language and get it from the horse’s mouth.
	Many schools and universities have valued enormously exchange students coming to the United Kingdom, and they are important in relation to the shorter-term student visitor visa. There is not only an economic advantage to consider, but a social advantage, in terms of, the quality of the education students are able to get. If they are studying international politics or history and people
	come with completely different experiences from elsewhere in the world, that enlivens, informs and improves the quality of the education of British students in universities and colleges. Also, this is about ensuring that we provide the strongest possible opportunity for overseas students to develop their understanding of what it is like to be in Britain and to do business in Britain. We hope that they will then do greater business with us further in the future.
	I would also point out that, as many hon. Members have said, this is an area of migration—if we want to term it as such—that is warmly welcomed and accepted by the British public. Leaving aside the matter of bogus colleges, where foreigners were exploited and not given a proper education, and British taxpayers were exploited because proper controls were not in place, it is warmly accepted in this country that international students are important for our economy. If we are to prosper in the future as a country that is in “a global race”, to use the Prime Minister’s term, we have to be able to compete for international students—for that market around the world.

Mark Reckless: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only have we had bogus colleges, but quite a lot of colleges have provided relatively low-value courses, be they in business, accounting or IT, where the incentive of being able to work part-time, stay on to work afterwards, bring dependants and potentially stay on has been much of the reason why international students have stayed, and that the Government have been right to crack down on that?

Chris Bryant: I want to see more evidence of precisely what the hon. Gentleman mentions. I believe he has been in his Committee all afternoon, so I understand why he has not been able to take part in the whole of this debate, which is a shame. I merely wish to cite the Government’s own Home Office paper from this year, “The Migrant Journey”, which showed that just 1% of students who came here in 2006 were permanently residing here five years later. So those myths that have sometimes grown up of—[Interruption.] There are others who are still studying and who have gone on to study other courses, but according to the Home Office’s own report only 1% are permanently residing. Some of the myths that have been mentioned in previous debates about 20% or 30% of students staying on afterwards are misguided.
	I wish briefly to discuss the Government’s record. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) referred to the Higher Education Statistics Agency. Its figures showed, contrary to the figures often provided by the Government, that the number of first-year, non-EU, new-entrant students at universities was down by 0.4% in 2011-12. In particular, the number of postgraduate new entrants has gone down from 105,195 to 103,150, which is potentially a worrying trend that we need to examine for the future because it is the first time there has been a fall in those figures for a decade—in effect, for all the time that similar statistics have been available.
	As several hon. Members said, the number of students coming from India has fallen by some 8,000. That number may have been made up for by the number coming from China, but, as my right hon. Friend the
	Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, it was a sign of the Government’s “forked-tonguedness” or two-facedness that the Prime Minister actually had to go to India to say that there is no cap on international students coming to the United Kingdom. There may not be a legal cap, but it certainly feels as if there is a cap, and the Government have to address that. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, if this is a growing market, we need to be holding our market share, and that means advancing and not stepping backwards. I would like us to increase our market share, because we have a unique and very valuable offer, and this would be good for the British economy. I worry that the way the Government’s immigration target is crafted has made that more difficult for us to achieve.
	All the estimates show a significant fall in Britain’s attractiveness as a place for study, while Australia and Canada have seen dramatic improvements in their attractiveness. One Australian who works in this business told me recently, “I am delighted at what your Government are doing, because you are giving us lots of business.” That should really worry the Government.
	I wish to raise one other minor point, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned and which relates to the number of overseas students who come to study degrees in science, technology, engineering and maths. That is the area in which we saw the most significant drop—8%—in 2011-12 in the number of non-EU new-entrant students coming to the UK. That must worry us, because it will affect our future competitiveness and productivity.
	I now want to ask the Minister about London Metropolitan university. On 3 September 2012, while responding to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green)— the Minister’s predecessor—said that more than 60% of students at London Met were involved in the “problems” of dubious education and were not proper students. He added:
	“It was not a small, isolated number of students; the sampling showed significant systemic problems throughout.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 26.]
	I should have thought that if that had been the case, a significant number of people would have been removed from the country.
	That one bovver-booted intervention, made at a time of the year—the autumn—when many people were coming to study in the United Kingdom, sent a message around the world that Britain was not open for business. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us precisely how many students from London Metropolitan university were deemed to be “not proper students” and have been removed from the country. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will write to me.
	In his report on tier 4 visas, John Vine said:
	“We found a potential risk of non-genuine students opting to apply for Student (Visitor) visas”,
	which, he said,
	“are not subject to the same stringent rules that are applied to Tier 4… The Agency needs to be alert to this to ensure that this route is not exploited in the future.”
	The dramatic increase in the number of people applying to study shorter courses is almost in direct proportion to the fall in the number applying for tier 4 visas. I fear
	that a displacement activity may be taking place, and I think there is a danger that unless we impose far more significant controls on shorter-term visas, they will be open to abuse.

Mark Harper: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and others who signed the motion asking for the debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for deciding that it was an appropriate use of time in the Chamber. It has been a very good debate.
	Let me start, in an unashamedly positive way, by quoting from the letter that the hon. Member for West Bromwich West received from the Prime Minister earlier this year in response to his own letter.
	“The UK has a fantastic offer for international students. Those with the right qualifications, enough money”
	—obviously they would need enough to pay for their courses—
	“and a good level of English can study here, with no annual limit on numbers. University students can work part-time and do work placements during their studies. When they finish they can stay, providing they get a job paying £20,000”
	—now £20,300—
	“a year or more, or as a Graduate Entrepreneur, under the first scheme of its kind in the world.”
	The Prime Minister confirmed:
	“The number coming to our universities is up.”
	He also confirmed, importantly—and, to be fair, a number of Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged this—that there was no cap, and that there would be no cap, on the number of students coming to the UK.

Paul Blomfield: rose—

Mark Harper: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I finish this point before I give way to him. I think I know what he is going to say, because I took careful note of what he and others said earlier. Let me deal with what I think he is going to say, and if I am wrong I will give way to him later.
	I believe that we have a very positive story to tell. I know that newspapers do not always report a positive story, but Ministers try to convey a positive message and, indeed, Members on both sides of the House have tried to do that today.

Joan Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: Let me make some progress first.
	The Government have been clear about the need to bring control to the immigration system, but we have also been clear about our wish to welcome those whom we want in the country. A common view, which many Members will share, was expressed particularly well by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who said that his constituents had voiced no concern either about those who come here to study at our excellent universities, or about those who come here to do highly skilled jobs in business. I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have deliberately designed our system to attract people like that, and to deter those who are not coming to work in skilled occupations, or who are coming for other reasons.
	The statistics show that we have achieved that selective balance. The number of university students and the number of people working in skilled jobs have risen. However, as my hon. Friend said, it should also be borne in mind that our constituents are anxious for us to have some control over the system. We must design a system that attracts the best and the brightest—to use the buzz words—from around the world to study, and appeals to global companies based in Britain that want to import some of their engineers and senior managers for a certain period to run their businesses, while also deterring those who will bring no benefit to the United Kingdom.
	As Lord Mandelson has said, the previous Government did not have a controlled system. Indeed, they had a completely uncontrolled system: they just went out grabbing people from around the world. We have been determined not to overreact to that, but also to ensure that we have a system that focuses on the right people coming to Britain.

Paul Blomfield: I was expecting the Minister to anticipate my question and respond to it, but as he has not, let me ask it. It is about the cap. Is it not disingenuous, and the sort of misuse of language that brings no credit to this House, when we say on the one hand that there is no cap on the number of students coming, and on the other that we have a target to reduce the number of people coming and students are included in that?

Mark Harper: I do not agree, for the following reason. The point was best made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). There are two aspects to this. First, over a period, international students who come here to study and then go back to their home country make no contribution to net migration at all, because they come to Britain and then leave. In a steady state, therefore, they make no contribution to net migration at all. My hon. Friend is right, however, that in a growing market, as a consequence of the difference between those coming in a year and those leaving in that year, there will be a gap, but it is only the gap that contributes to net migration, not the total number.
	One of the complexities here is that the data on those leaving are not brilliant. The Office for National Statistics, which is independent and which measures the numbers of people coming to and leaving Britain, measures those coming to study, but does not currently measure those who were studying and left. One of the improvements it has made to its system is that it is now starting to do that, and we will get the first of those statistics in August, I think. Coming back to a point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made, that will give us a much clearer picture of how many students do leave each year, and we will then get a much clearer idea of the impact of student numbers on net migration. It is worth remembering that a lot of genuine students are still in the UK quite a considerable time after their arrival. According to one study quoted by Opposition Members, about 20% of former international students are still in the UK although they might not have decided to settle here permanently.
	The other important point shows why we need a robust system. The NAO study has been quoted several times. In the past there were significant numbers of purported students who were not here to study, but who
	were working in low-skilled jobs, and significant numbers of students were renewing their visas over a period of time without any academic progression at all. It does no credit to our immigration system or our genuine academic institutions that such abuse is possible. We must deal with that, as well as welcome those we want to welcome to Britain.

Joan Ruddock: I want to relay to the Minister my experiences and those of my constituents in respect of those moving from one course to a higher course who need to renew a visa. It is taking at least three months, and during that time the student has no access to their passport and cannot travel for academic or personal reasons. Is the Minister really satisfied that that is good enough? Will he put more resources into this whole area of endeavour in the Home Office?

Mark Harper: The point the right hon. Lady makes about in-country performance is absolutely right; it is true that the performance in the last financial year of what was the UK Border Agency was not good enough, as I know very well from conversations and correspondence with Members. Out-of-country performance has remained very good, however. Part of the reason why the Home Secretary made the changes she has made to the border agency was to fix the problems in the UK visas and immigration part of the business. The good news is that we have put a lot of resource and effort into turning that around, and the performance of the Home Office for in-country operations—which used to be a UKBA responsibility—has got immeasurably better. The latest figures are much better. It has taken some time to do that, but I ask the right hon. Lady to let me know of any specific outstanding cases, and I will look at them and see if there is anything we can do.

Chris Bryant: The Minister slipped in the words “academic progression”. I fully understand why, in the vast majority of cases, someone would want to go from an undergraduate degree to a postgraduate degree and so on, but there are cases, in particular for vocations and some STEM degrees, where a student who had first done an undergraduate degree in their home country might want to come to the UK to study for another undergraduate degree, which would not count as academic progression. I worry that people might therefore be being excluded who would be perfectly decent and sensible to have studying here.

Mark Harper: I was referring to people who, as I have seen when we have removed them, have been in the UK for a decade or more, perpetually renewing a student visa and clearly making no progress. That is an abuse of the system. We were talking about that, not about trying to micromanage someone’s academic career.
	Let me do something that I cannot always do and give some positive news to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about London Metropolitan university. I will not rehearse the past in great detail, but I have put a lot of work into this—it happened just about the time at which I was given this job and at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) became the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice—and I am absolutely convinced that
	the UK Border Agency, as it was, took exactly the right decision to revoke London Metropolitan university’s sponsor licence. It was not fulfilling its responsibilities by any measure. Nobody in the sector has defended it and its behaviour was, I am afraid, well known.
	The positive news, which shows that the system works, is that we have worked closely with London Metropolitan university and it has made significant improvements to its system and to the administration of how it delivers on its requirements. It has now been awarded an A-rated sponsor licence, which means it can sponsor international students, and it has 12 months to build up a track record and apply again for highly trusted sponsor status. That is very positive. The Home Office has worked very closely with the university—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Rhondda is asking how many students there are. The university can recruit only 15% of the number it could originally have while it is an A-rated sponsor.
	The hon. Member for Islington North asked me about this subject first. I do not have the specific details of all the students that were there and what has happened to them, but we have those data because we wrote to every single one. I will write to the hon. Gentleman, since the university is in his constituency, and I will put a copy of my reply in the Library—[Interruption.] I will also send a copy to the hon. Member for Rhondda and I will include the details of how many have left the country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful for that information and look forward to receiving the Minister’s letter. Does this mean that students who started their second year last September will now be able to complete the third year of a three-year degree course and that we are back on track towards getting highly trusted status restored in a year’s time?

Mark Harper: It might be more sensible if, rather than trying to answer a lot of specific questions, I set out the detail about the university when I write to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, I shall copy the letter to the hon. Member for Rhondda and will put it in the Library so that other Members can see it. The story is positive, as the university has started to deliver on its compliance requirements.
	The Home Office is now working closely with universities and Universities UK on a co-regulation initiative to set out their responsibilities clearly for them. We have had a number of workshops with those universities and they have found that very helpful. I have certainly had positive feedback from UUK, the Russell Group and individual universities I have visited, and they have seen a change in their relationship with the Home Office. It is important that we continue to improve that and I have asked the Home Office to continue to do so.

Jason McCartney: On the theme of positive news, will the Minister join me in welcoming the good news from the award-winning Huddersfield university, which saw its number of international students increase from 1,430 in 2010-11 to 1,845 in the last academic year, an increase of 29%? It is an award-winning university and it contributes massively not only to Huddersfield but to growth and enterprise in the whole of Yorkshire and the north of England.

Mark Harper: That is a helpful point, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members—for example, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) told us about sharp increases in the number of international students at her local university.
	As my final point—I do not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will touch on the student visitor visa route, on which the hon. Member for Rhondda expressed two slightly different views. First, he said he was pleased that international students are coming here on shorter courses, but then he voiced some concerns. I hope he noticed that yesterday we published some detailed research that I think makes it clear that the visitor route is being used exactly as intended. It is attracting high-value, low-risk migrants who contribute positively to economic growth; in large part, they attend institutions that are accredited by bodies approved by the Home Office, and most are doing English language programmes or university exchanges. There is literally no evidence of displacement from tier 4 into the student visitor route. The number of students from countries where we have seen abuse under tier 4 and where we have cracked down on that abuse is rising in single figures—fewer than 10—so there is no evidence of further abuse, which I think is very positive. It is perfectly proper that the hon. Gentleman raised the question, but the evidence shows no risk at all.
	In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Andrew Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: Yes; I think I am allowed to give way briefly.

Andrew Smith: Before the Minister concludes his remarks, will he tell the House how he intends to respond to the Select Committee recommendations and his reasons for that response? He has not yet done so.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have responded to the Select Committee reports and to each of the Select Committees. The clearest response is this: we do not have a cap on student numbers, and I do not think our net migration target means that we will have to take action that damages universities. Universities were originally concerned that having a net migration target and counting student numbers, as all our international competitors do, would drive the Government to take decisions on future policy that would damage universities. The fact that we have stated clearly that not only do we not have a cap but we are not going to have a cap—that was stated not only by me but by the Prime Minister—should reassure universities.
	We will take every opportunity to communicate that positive message about our excellent offer for international students, and we will work in partnership with our excellent universities to continue to increase the number
	of international students who come here from around the world. In that, I think I can say that I speak for every right hon. and hon. Member who participated in the debate.

Adrian Bailey: Conscious of the time, I will be brief. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. When I applied for it, my objective was a debate that was constructive in tone and would enable us to discuss issues and to present facts and figures that are not normally publicised to the extent that they should be. In its own way, the House today may have helped to change the perception abroad by making it clear that this House recognises and understands the contribution that international students make to our economy and welcomes them.
	My second point, however, is that the Minister has not really resolved the contradiction at the heart of current policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, it is contradictory to say that bona fide students are welcome and there is no cap on numbers and, at the same time, to say that there is a target to reduce overall immigration to fewer than 100,000 and student visas should be included in the numbers. The Minister exercised some fairly sophisticated arguments in justification, but I put it to him that, were he to undergo a credibility interview on that point, he would find it hard to persuade Members and would-be international students in foreign countries that what he said is the case.
	Lastly, I remind the Minister that the consensus that has emerged during the debate is reflected more widely. Although I did not anticipate the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills coming to the House to vote for the motion, his public utterances have made it clear where he stands on the issue. The Mayor of London—it shows how passionately I feel about it that I quote the Mayor of London—has also made public statements in favour of the arguments set out today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has made similar statements. When we get three such representatives across the political spectrum, I hope the Minister will accept that there is an enormous and growing consensus in favour of the recommended course of action.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the recommendations of the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee, and the Committee of Public Accounts, together with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee and the EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, for the removal of students from net migration targets; and invites the Home Office to further consider the conclusions of these Committees in developing its immigration policy.

Pollinators and Pesticides

[Relevant document: Seventh Report of the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2012-13, Pollinators and Pesticides, HC 668.]

Joan Walley: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of pollinators and pesticides.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate. Despite the fact that there are so many conflicting events going on outside the House, we have a healthy number of MPs here who wish to participate. I am grateful to everybody for attending.
	The debate today is especially appropriate given that this year is the 50th anniversary of the publication of “Silent Spring”, Rachel Carson’s seminal work on the environmental cost of pesticides such as DDT. It is right that we should revisit the important issue of ecology and the relationship of plants and animals to their environment and to one another.
	The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry on pollinators and pesticides from November 2012 to March 2013. We extended it because there were so many new developments as we carried on with our inquiry. We received 40 written submissions and we held seven oral evidence sessions. I thank all the witnesses to the inquiry. It was a unanimous report and I thank members of the Committee, some of whom are able to be present today and some of whom have sent their apologies. I also thank the Committee staff, who did a phenomenal amount of work helping us to compile our report, and put on record my thanks to Chris Miles of cdimagesanddesigns for his generosity in allowing us to use his photograph, “Pit stop” to grace the cover of the report. We are often told how accessible or otherwise House of Commons reports are, and we feel that thanks to him, the cover on our report is fitting. Bees like to go to bright, colourful flowers and we thought we would have the same for our report.
	The EAC report was published on 5 April. In normal circumstances we would have been content to wait for the Government response to our report, but given that the European Commission took significant regulatory action in this area on 29 April, shortly after its publication, we felt that a debate was urgent and timely, and on behalf of the Committee I sought the opportunity to hold the debate today.
	Let me put on record the favourable response that we have had from many who care about nature and wildlife. I thank Buglife, which affirmed that our report provides robust recommendations for the future of pollinators and the agricultural industry, and Friends of the Earth, whose recent reception in the House was attended by well over 100 MPs, although I was not able to be there myself. That testified how much support there is in our constituencies all around the UK for its bee action plan. The all-party group on agro-ecology welcomed our support. It, too, welcomes the recent decision by the EU to ban three types of neonicotinoid pesticides. The all-party group believes that to be the right decision, and calls for decisions on our food supply and environment
	to be based on science and not on extreme lobbying and scare-mongering by those who have an immense vested interest.

Jeremy Corbyn: I compliment my hon. Friend for the report and her work on this issue. While I welcome the decision on particular pesticides, does she recognise that there is a wider question of eco-diversity that we have to address? If we do not, that will be something else that kills off the bee population in future. We must have a different approach to our natural environment in relation to agriculture.

Joan Walley: I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. Our report clearly states that there is no one solution and that we need, as he rightly says, a whole new systemic approach. The core of our report is that we need to get the balance right between scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, but there are very many issues that relate to all this.
	We have had further support from many members of the general public and concerned interest groups, not least Bedfordshire Beekeepers Association, which said:
	“Your work has been an inspirational example of democratic scrutiny in action…we hope that you will be able to hold government to account and influence policy making both at national and EU level.”
	This is exactly what we are doing today and intend to continue doing. This debate is by no means our only follow-up to the report. We are raising the issue today to see how the many things that need to be done can get done, with the direction of the Government.
	The Committee decided to conduct our inquiry because the available evidence indicated that insect pollinators have experienced serious population declines in the UK in recent years. For example, we heard—this is quite shocking—that two thirds to three quarters of insect pollinator species are declining in the UK. Indeed, the 2013 report “State of Nature” assessed 178 bee species in the UK and found that half were in decline. For the benefit of the House, I should explain that insect pollinators include not only honey bees and wild bees but other insects such as hoverflies, moths and butterflies. At the moment, the honey bee is the sentinel species for all insect pollinators, which means that most scientific studies involve bees, but given the biological differences between the various insect pollinators, it is vital that the Government monitor a wider range of species. I hope that this is an uncontroversial point on which the Government will agree with my Committee.

David Heath: indicated assent.

Joan Walley: I am very pleased to see the Minister nodding. I refer him to our recommendation 13: “Defra must”—I stress “must”—
	“introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species to inform policy making.”
	We felt that that is the bottom line and the starting point of what now needs to be done. As we went through our deliberations and came to reach our decisions, we endeavoured to find as much common ground among members of the Committee as we could before we turned to the issue of neonicotinoids.
	Let me move on to the question of why insect populations might be declining. I want to make it clear at the outset that the health of insect pollinators is defined by a range of factors, including not only pesticides but urbanisation, loss of habitat, agricultural intensification and climate change; obviously, weather patterns affect things as well.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend will know that the Government intend to issue—shortly, I believe—planning guidance on biodiversity. Does she agree that councils need to be encouraged and given the impetus to protect and restore bee-friendly habitats in their own neighbourhoods, which would make a real contribution to addressing the point she is making?

Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend; she makes exactly the right point, and I absolutely agree. We need safe havens for wildlife, especially in urban areas, although it is not just about urban areas. The planning system underpins the whole issue of our natural capital and biodiversity. If we do not have guidance on how we protect and enhance our natural environment, the bees do not stand a chance.
	Throughout our inquiry, the Environmental Audit Committee acknowledged the importance of sustaining agricultural yields, controlling pests effectively and maintaining food security. Indeed, those concerns were reflected in our final report. Equally, we were mindful of the value of insect pollinators as an ecosystem service to UK agriculture. I think that Members will be aware of the various estimates of the agricultural value of insect pollination, ranging from £500 million to £1.9 billion, depending on whether one takes into account the cost of replacement hand pollination. We felt that those issues ought to be given a value and taken into account.
	In case anyone thinks that our report is just about a moratorium on certain neonicotinoids, I hope they will have a chance to read it in full and make themselves aware of the cross-cutting nature of our work and the importance that we give to using the common agricultural policy control to help British farming move as quickly as possible to integrated pest management.
	As I have said, the Committee considered a range of factors that affect insect pollinators, but we were driven to scrutinise the effects of one family of insecticides—neonicotinoids—by the weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. For Members who are not familiar with neonicotinoids, I should say that they are a class of insecticide derived from nicotine. Following their introduction in the mid-’90s, they have been widely used in the UK on oilseed rape, cereals, maize, sugar beet and crops grown in glass houses. The body of evidence indicating that neonicotinoids cause acute harm to bees grew appreciably in the course of our inquiry, as new studies were published in heavyweight journals such as Science and Nature. In this case, harm to bees includes increased susceptibility to disease and reduced foraging and reproduction. If Members are interested in the particular scientific studies, I refer them to the Henry, Whitehorn and Gill experiments.
	We heard that 94% of published peer-reviewed experiments on the effects of neonicotinoids on bees found evidence of acute harm. The Department for
	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the agri-chemical industry argued throughout our inquiry that the dosage used in those laboratory experiments was too high. In response it is worth pointing out that those studies used dosages derived from the best available data on the concentrations of neonicotinoids that bees encounter in the field.
	The agri-chemical industry also likes to cite its own tests as proof that neonicotinoids cannot harm bees. However, the industry studies by which neonicotinoids were licensed for use in the European Union were not peer reviewed and are not open to scrutiny due to the supposed commercial sensitivity of the data. Furthermore, we found evidence in relation to the licensing of imidacloprid which calls into question altogether the rigour of the testing regime.
	Against that background, we went on to consider the precautionary principle. By definition, insecticides kill insects. The precautionary question is whether neonicotinoid insecticides have an unsustainable impact on insect pollinators. The 1992 United Nations Rio declaration on environment and development states:
	“Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
	That internationally agreed definition of the precautionary principle was later enshrined in the Lisbon treaty and it underpins much of the work that has been done on sustainable development, including when the work of the Rio conference was built on at Rio+20 only last year in Brazil.
	Throughout our inquiry, DEFRA used what it identified as a lack of full scientific certainty as an excuse for inaction. For example, at one stage the Department stated that it would require unequivocal evidence of harm before acting on neonicotinoids.

Sarah Wollaston: In medical research, there is a huge issue with drug companies not publishing inconvenient data. Does the hon. Lady feel that that is a serious problem with neonicotinoids?

Joan Walley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point about commercial confidentiality and the lack of transparency. We hear a lot at the moment about lobbying and related issues, but if the agri-chemical industry wishes to make claims about the value of its products, it must open up the evidence to full scrutiny. There is no case for hiding behind so-called “commercial confidentiality”. That prevents the open, transparent and informed policy making that is so badly needed. I agree with the hon. Lady and her point relates to one of the recommendations in our report.
	When the weight of peer-reviewed evidence rendered untenable DEFRA’s position on the need for unequivocal evidence, it claimed that it would commission the Food and Environment Research Agency to conduct a realistic field study to resolve the matter. That study was not peer reviewed and it was, as one witness to our inquiry presciently pointed out, clearly too small to provide conclusive results. It was undermined by fundamental errors in its execution, such as placing the various hives that were used in the experiments outside on different days of the year.
	Our view on the study, which was that we should not accept it, was confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority on Tuesday, when it identified the same weaknesses as we did.

David Heath: indicated assent.

Joan Walley: I am glad to see the Minister nodding his head. The conclusion was that there was no reason for EFSA to change its view.
	DEFRA told us that its pesticides policy was underpinned by the precautionary principle. I fear that in this case, that statement of intent has not been matched by DEFRA’s actions. Interestingly, the private sector appears to be more willing than DEFRA to implement precautions. In the course of our inquiry, we heard that major do-it-yourself chains such as B&Q, Wickes and Homebase were withdrawing neonicotinoids from sale for domestic use, and supermarket chains such as the Co-operative have prohibited their suppliers from using neonicotinoids in anything other than exceptional circumstances. I also welcome the press release from Waitrose, which states that it is looking to do the same in respect of flowering crops.
	As our report was taking shape and we were having involved discussions among ourselves, we had to extend the length of our inquiry to take account of developments elsewhere, because it was clear that we were being overtaken by events such as the European Commission’s regulatory action. Although the growing weight of published scientific research did not impress DEFRA, it led the EC to take action. The EC is responsible for licensing chemicals for use in European agriculture. It instructed EFSA to draw up new risk assessments for neonicotinoids in relation to bees. The revised risk assessments led the EC to propose measured regulatory action, with a two-year EU-wide moratorium on the use of three of the five neonicotinoids on crops that are attractive to bees.
	The EC proposal was put to a qualified majority vote on 15 March. As we all know, the vote was inconclusive and the UK abstained. The hung outcome of the vote allowed the EC to implement the appeal procedure, which led to a second vote on 29 April. I understand that between 15 March and 29 April, there was intensive lobbying and negotiation in Europe. Indeed, I went out personally to present our report to the European Commissioner. Finally, the EC amended its initial proposal. It recognised the need to delay the introduction of a moratorium to allow the seed supply chain time to adjust, which was a recommendation of our report. That is an example of how my Committee focused on the practical outcomes for the agricultural sector. We did not want to make any knee-jerk recommendations and we wanted there to be time for the matter to be properly understood and acted on.
	In the second vote, on 29 April, the UK shifted from abstention to active resistance by voting against the proposed moratorium, despite the concessions made by the European Commission. However, countries such as Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands all voted for the moratorium, which will consequently be introduced across the EU on 1 December 2013.
	What effects will the two-year moratorium have on UK agriculture? First, I want to highlight that when neonicotinoids were banned for use on maize in Italy, there was no negative effect on yield. Secondly, the moratorium will prevent farmers from using neonicotinoids on
	“crops that are attractive to bees”,
	which of course excludes sugar beet, crops grown in glass houses and winter wheat; it is quite a proportionate measure. Thirdly, neonicotinoids are a relatively recent innovation. Oilseed rape, for example, was a viable UK crop before the introduction of neonicotinoids in the mid-‘90s.
	Some have argued that a moratorium on neonicotinoids will lead farmers to spray greater quantities of other more environmentally harmful pesticides, such as organophosphates and pyrethroids. However, it is open to DEFRA to ensure that that is not the case. It is clearly in the interests of the environment, food security, minimising resistance among pests and maximising agricultural incomes that the least possible amount of pesticides is used in agricultural production. Indeed, in talks I have had with different bodies they have said that such a moratorium will mean that there must be a focus on what to do and what alternative proposals to come up with, so that we incentivise a more healthy approach to crops.
	To that end, integrated pest management is a broad approach to plant protection that minimises pesticide use and encourages natural pest control mechanisms. By 1 January 2014, all pesticide users will be required to adopt IPM under the European directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. If UK farmers practise IPM, the argument that a moratorium on neonicotinoids will lead to unfavourable environmental outcomes does not hold. I believe that was very much a deciding factor in the Committee’s reaching its unanimous decision.
	DEFRA does not appear to have prioritised compliance with the directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. The directive states:
	“Member states should adopt…quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce…the impact of pesticide use on the environment.”
	However, a DEFRA official dismissed such targets as “meaningless”, which sits uneasily with the Department’s stated commitments to integrated pest management. Indeed, our report was halted or delayed because the Government were slow to make a full response to that European directive.
	Other than the recommendations on the moratorium of certain neonicotinoids, the importance of monitoring the health of pollinators and the introduction of integrated pest management, many other detailed issues arise from the Committee’s report that relate to risk assessment and risk management. Those include reforms involving the European food safety authority, where our Government, should they wish to, could take the lead, CAP reform and recognising the importance of less secrecy and greater transparency in the risk assessment trials undertaken by the agrochemical industry—the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to delay their response to our report, which was due this week, but I look forward to their detailed response on the work we have carried out. For now, however, events have moved quickly and DEFRA did not take our advice when the issue was raised by the European Commission.
	In conclusion, I have three questions for the Minister. First, I believe DEFRA has said it will commission further field research on neonicotinoids and bees. Will that research be published in a journal and be peer reviewed? Will the Minister consider commissioning the British scientists who participated in the Gill and Whitehorn studies, rather than FERA, whose previous report was discredited? Is it DEFRA policy to reject all laboratory studies—and, by extension, scientific method—as a basis for action? Secondly, how will DEFRA ensure the effective implementation of the sustainable use of pesticide directive? Thirdly, will the Minister explain what changed between the first EU vote on 15 March, when the UK abstained, to the second EU vote, on 29 April, when the UK voted against a moratorium?
	The UK public are concerned about bees and pollinators. When I raised this at Prime Minister’s Question Time, he stressed the importance of the precautionary principle. As we look forward to the summer, people’s minds will be on gardening and planting, and farmers’ minds will be on planting and harvesting. It is critical that we hear from the Government on how they will respond to the EU moratorium.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I suggest each speaker takes around 10 minutes?

Neil Carmichael: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, not least because I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I thank our Chair for the excellent leadership she has provided with this report and others. She is right on the importance of establishing a broad agreement, which the Committee did in its report—we have always achieved such agreement in previous reports, too. That is a good illustration of the Committee’s effectiveness, which I hope will continue, because we will do important work on investment in the green economy, which will result in a thought-provoking and important report.
	I am a former farmer, so I am familiar with the pesticides argument. I was principally a livestock farmer, but I could not escape other types of farming. I fully support the report’s recommendations. It is important that we recognise that bees are essential to our environment and to successful farming. That is well illustrated by my constituency—Stroud is recognised as world bee place. We have done a huge amount of work to promote the protection of bees, including wild bees, which are also at risk. I am extraordinarily proud of my constituency’s bee protection reputation.
	It is important to recognise that there are more threats to bees than pesticides. We have heard about bee starvation and bee diseases such as varroa—I hope I pronounced that correctly; as a Northumbrian, I sometimes get my vowels slightly mixed up. We also know of a variety of other threats to bees. We should recognise that the Government see the problem and are taking action with the bee protection plan. I hope the Minister outlines how extensive that plan is, because we need to demonstrate that the coalition Government are determined to protect bees.
	It was disappointing that the UK did not vote in favour of the moratorium on neonicotinoids, but the moratorium is in place. As our Committee Chair correctly
	noted, that reflects the concerns and interest the Committee has spelt out. We had a lengthy debate on the seeds supply chain, and recognised that, for any moratorium to be effective, it would have to start later than we envisaged, which is right. It is good that Europe noticed that as well. The changes our Chair outlined are extremely welcome. It is good that the Government, through the field studies we have heard about, are determined to recognise the importance of the impact of neonicotinoids.
	Transparency is critical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) noted, there are too many occasions when one wonders how much we really know about what is being discovered or being hidden, so this matter would benefit from true transparency. I urge the Minister and the Department to consider the transparency of field studies, so that we know exactly what is going on and what the tests reveal. As the Chair noted, maize in Italy did not really suffer as a result of neonicotinoids being banned, but that is just one example. Everybody would benefit from more study and a more comprehensive understanding, including pesticide manufacturers. One problem that has to be borne in mind is that banning one type of pesticide might mean that other pesticides are used in an uncontrolled way. We have to monitor the use of all pesticides, especially when withdrawing neonicotinoids, as using different pesticides might make matters considerably worse. I am sure the Government are minded to do that.
	On the wider question of the common agricultural policy and overall farm management, as we move towards a reformed CAP it is important to recognise good work, such as that done by the Environmental Stewardship scheme. I would like to see more farmers using such schemes, and for those schemes to become more tailored towards the kind of issue we are debating today.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman speaks about further reform of the CAP. I am sure he is aware that recent reforms to the CAP have given national Governments discretion to switch subsidies to agri-environment schemes, which could bring in much more bee-friendly habitats. Does he agree that the Government ought to be taking that step, rather than going on so much about what might be done in the future? Let us use what we have got now.

Neil Carmichael: The Government are a Government of positive action. We are a coalition Government. We benefit enormously from having Conservatives on one side and Liberal Democrats on the other, and I am certain that that combination will bring about exactly what the right hon. Lady says.
	The right hon. Lady raises an interesting point about what amounts to the devolution of the CAP. From its inception, its impact has been characterised by either dominant nation states promoting certain types of produce, or, as in this case, by policy filtration, with different levels of government influencing outcomes by changing the nature of the policy. That was particularly prevalent in the early days in certain Mediterranean countries with regard to olives and so on. We should recognise devolution, but it is a double-edged sword. We in this country are able to do the right thing, but can we always guarantee that that will be the case in other countries that might have other priorities? I welcome those changes in the CAP, but urge the Government to do as the
	hon. Lady suggests. Indeed, I would go further and argue that we need to amplify the CAP’s impact environmental protection. It needs to be understood more clearly by the wider public. If people understood its more positive implications and outcomes, we could generate greater support for the CAP.
	To sum up, I think it is right to have the moratorium on neonicotinoids and that it was postponed to allow the supply chain to adjust. It is necessary, however, to maintain a weather eye on neonicotinoids, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to field studies. It is important that they be conducted transparently and that their outcomes be made transparent. It is also important to recognise the value of good management and the impact that the reformed CAP can have. I would like more farmers encouraged down that path. In broad terms, we should celebrate the fact that many organisations—including those in my constituency I mentioned—are doing a lot of good work for the protection of bees. We should be supporting and welcoming those local solutions. Gardeners, too, have a responsibility, because in the past they have used neonicotinoids. It is important to recognise that all of us—I indulge in a spot of gardening myself, though I do not use neonicotinoids —should promote good practice wherever it is necessary, and it is necessary in our gardens, as well as on our farms.

Martin Caton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and I join him in paying tribute to the leadership of our Committee Chair, not only on this vital inquiry, but on all our inquiries.
	I strongly support all the conclusions and recommendations in our report, but my interest in what is happening to our pollinating insects goes back quite a bit further than last November, when we started taking evidence. In fact, it probably dates back more than 40 years to when I was at agricultural school and undertook a course in apiculture. The certificate I secured at the end remains a treasured possession. More recently, about three years ago, that interest was further spurred by a 2009 report produced by the organisation Buglife, which our Chair has already mentioned, and the Soil Association. It was a review of the scientific literature on a group of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids on non-target insect species.
	Although the combined evidence in the report was not conclusive, even at that time it rang serious alarm bells that should have received an urgent response from the Government. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, which a surprising number of Members from across the House attended to express their shared concern about the potential threat posed by these pesticides to a vital group of invertebrates—pollinating insects. Since that debate, thanks to intelligence supplied by Buglife and other environmental organisations, I have tried to keep track of further research and, when significant, have drawn it to the House’s attention through early-day motions and other parliamentary means.
	As our Chair said, last autumn, the Committee decided to conduct what has turned out to be a major inquiry taking evidence from the organisations she mentioned.
	The first thing the Committee had to recognise was that many of our pollinating species appeared to have been in decline for some time. Of course, when we look at pollinators—especially any threats to them—the first focus is usually honey bees. That has been particularly the case in Europe and the USA in recent years, with alarming reports of what is sometimes called colony collapse on an international basis.
	As a result of their economic significance, honey bees attract far more scientific attention than any other pollinator. Their decline has been ascribed to a range of causes—pests and diseases, such as the varroa mite, which has been mentioned, along with weather conditions, poor nutrition, poor husbandry, urbanisation, agricultural intensification, habitat degradation and the use and misuse of pesticides. However, honey bees are not the main pollinators in the UK—far from it. Ninety per cent of insect pollination is done by the thousands of other, wild pollinators—other bees, hoverflies, butterflies, carrion flies, beetles, midges, moths, and so on. These other pollinators are not monitored or studied like honey bees, so we do not know exactly what is happening to them. However, we received disquieting evidence from some witnesses of how, as the Chair has said, two thirds of wild pollinator species are declining, including moths, butterflies, hoverflies and bumble bees. We were told that of the 25 UK bumble bee species, two or three—no one is sure because the research has not been done—have already become extinct, while probably 10 others have suffered large range decline.
	We were advised that DEFRA has a bee unit that does a good job of monitoring honey bees. There are 70 Government scientists dedicated to researching honey bees, but just part of one scientist looking at the health of wild bees. That has to change. We cannot afford to remain ignorant about our wild pollinators. That is why we call in the report for DEFRA to introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species. If we do not really know what is going on, we cannot make the right policy decisions to halt decline.
	Most people looking at pollinator decline would come to the conclusion that, at least in most cases, multiple factors are at play—those that I have listed for honey bees and perhaps others. Most of our witnesses who addressed the wider picture accepted that there were probably a range of causes. However, the representatives of mainstream farming and especially the agrichemical industry were absolutely adamant that the decline had nothing to do with pesticide use and especially not the use of neonics. Our Chair has described how neonicotinoids work, which I will not repeat, but I will add that they are systemic, which means that they get into every part of the plants that are treated with them. Pollinating insects absorb them and carry them back to their nests or hives, even though they are not the target species.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is making some interesting points. Does he think, as I do, that the Government perhaps need to rewrite their national pesticides action plan? There are methods other than the use of chemicals. They ought to be encouraged so that farmers and horticulturalists do whatever they can to reduce the chemical pressure on the environment and the pollinators.

Martin Caton: I completely agree, and I am coming to the Government’s pesticides action plan, which is actually an “inaction plan”—to be quite honest, it is a disgraceful document.
	We looked at the pesticide approvals regime at EU and UK levels, and found a system flawed at both. Put simply, it works like this. The chemical company puts together the scientific data to support its application and submits a dossier to the regulatory authority in any EU member state. That authority’s experts make their own assessment, which is set out in a draft assessment report. That is then reported to the European Food Safety Authority, which conducts a peer review by experts from other EU countries. Its conclusions are sent to the Commission, which makes a proposal—for approval or not—to the Council of Ministers. After approval, companies can apply to the regulatory authority in any member state for permission to market their product. The regulatory authority in the UK is the chemicals regulation directorate of the Health and Safety Executive. The CRD prepares a scientific evaluation, which is considered by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which is a statutory, independent body that advises Ministers on whether approval should be given.
	On the face of it, the whole thing sounds quite rigorous, but we found significant flaws. First, as our Chair said, the pesticide manufacturers that commission the research to submit to the regulators keep control of that research. In practice, that means that the data on safety under which a chemical is licensed are not put into the public domain, denying effective academic access and, therefore, independent criticism. In contrast, some of the academics who gave evidence to us reported that their research was openly published, which meant that where it showed a link between pesticide use and pollinator decline, defenders of the agrichemical industry would go through their work with a fine-toothed comb looking for a way to rubbish it, sometimes deliberately misinterpreting it to do so. We believe that it should not be beyond the wit of humankind to ensure maximum transparency without threatening genuine commercial sensitivity.
	Another problem with the process is that, up to now, the EU approval system has explicitly addressed only the risk to honey bees. That probably would not be too bad if the honey bee were one of the more fragile and sensitive pollinators. If that were the case, and it survived exposure to a product, it would be likely that other, tougher pollinator species would be fine. In fact, we heard evidence that the honey bee is probably the most robust of the pollinators when it comes to pesticide exposure. Bumble bee research, for instance, shows the clear detrimental impact of neonicotinoid use. Some pollinators, such as hoverflies, have very different life cycles from any bees, and therefore have different exposure routes. Such pollinators remain unconsidered at present. We urge DEFRA to introduce a representative range of sentinel pollinator species in UK pesticide risk assessments, and to work for the same arrangements across the EU.
	We also came across an example that showed that, however good the approval system might be in theory, it can fall down badly in practice. The neonicotinoid imidacloprid had to be re-evaluated in 2006. Germany’s regulatory authority produced the draft assessment report. One of the properties to be assessed was the propensity of the pesticide to accumulate in soil and water, and the
	assessments were carried out in two trials here in the UK. The results of the tests were misreported in the draft assessment report, however. It concluded that
	“the compound has no potential for accumulation in soil”.
	That is exactly the opposite of what the trial evidence showed. When the European Food Safety Authority conducted its peer review of the German assessment, it identified the pesticide’s apparent tendency to accumulate, and concluded:
	“The risk assessment to soil dwelling organisms cannot be finalised because the assessment of soil accumulation is not finalised.”
	This formed part of the text of the EFSA peer review sent to the Commission, so one might have expected that body to refuse approval until the accumulation question had been answered.
	The European Commission Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health considered EFSA’s report and, astonishingly, gave imidacloprid its approval, stating that it presented
	“no unacceptable risks to the environment”.
	There was no mention of accumulation in soil. That was a clear and dangerous failure of the assessment process. We argued that the process needed to be tightened up by empowering EFSA to include in future peer reviews action points that the Commission must address.
	We looked at the growing body of evidence linking neonicotinoid use with pollinator decline. This was taken seriously by a considerable number of academics, but dismissed by the agrichemical companies, mainly for two reasons. First, they claimed that the trial doses were higher than would be used in practice. Secondly, they stated that the experiments had been carried out in the laboratory or only partly in the field, and claimed that they could trust only field trials. That Orwellian mantra, “Field trials good, laboratory trials bad”, was repeated often during our inquiry.
	DEFRA’s real underlying attitude to assessing the risks of pesticide use was inadvertently given away in a 2012 document, “Neonicotinoid insecticides and bees: the state of the science and the regulatory response”. As our Committee Chair has said, the Department stated that it needed unequivocal proof in order to support a moratorium.

Joan Walley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making these points. This sums up the flawed basis on which permissions were being given throughout the whole regulatory procedure. We are now presenting the Government with the opportunity to take a leadership role, and we want them to follow up exactly on the recommendations in our report.

Martin Caton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will now conclude my speech, as I have gone over the 10 minutes you suggested, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Alan Whitehead: It is true to say that very little of what is discussed in this Chamber is beyond dispute. Indeed, only on Tuesday, a scientific hypothesis that has been shown to be supported by 97% of scientists writing about it in a review of 12,000 papers—namely, anthropogenic global warming—was nevertheless merrily being debated by hon. Members as though that near certainty did not exist. Questions
	concerning what is happening to bees and pollinators, what the causes are and what role pesticides may or may not play in the problems that we have heard this afternoon are occurring with bee populations are far less certain than that. It is thus potentially a matter for a great deal of dispute.
	I want to reflect on the related problem that we as legislators have in addressing those issues and deciding how best to take action on them. The Select Committee’s work on this issue was an exemplar of how to go about that when the members themselves are not experts. Interestingly, however, as we have heard, the Environmental Audit Committee has rather more experts on it than one might think in respect of those who hold a certificate in apiculture. Also, several members are active or former farmers who have a great deal of knowledge and information about how these things work in general. The Committee did not go about its business in any kind of sensationalist manner. It operated carefully, quietly and at some length, seeking a large range of thoughts, opinions and experts in order to shed some light on what is a very knotty problem.
	The problem was well summed up in a book published recently by the Canadian author, Douglas Coupland. He posited as a starting point of his novel that bees had been declared extinct. Then, across America, five people were found who had been stung by bees, and they were all arrested and immediately investigated by scientists on the basis of that apparently counter-scientific fact relating to the continuous existence of bees. Douglas Coupland was, I think, a little unscientific in setting out a world in which there were no bees, without taking account of the large number of other pollinators that exist alongside bees.
	We know from the evidence produced before the Select Committee that the problem is not just about honey bees; in fact it is not just about bees as it is about all the pollinators that operate in our environment in such a fundamentally important and basic way to ensure that our ecosystem continues in a recognisable way. If the sort of declines that the Committee heard about are to continue at the same rate over the same sort of period, not just several bumble bee species but large numbers of bumble bees will be extinct.
	The Committee was told that 600 solitary bees can pollinate as well as two hives containing 30,000 honey bees, so it is not just about honey bees. As our Committee Chairman mentioned, they are a sentinel species, but it is nevertheless the case that hoverflies, butterflies and all sorts of other pollinators are in steep decline. We were told that 66% of larger moth species in the countryside are declining, as are most of the bumble bees—we were told that six species had declined by at least 80% in recent years. As we have heard, hoverflies are declining, and 71% of butterfly species are declining at an alarming rate. We do not have data on the vast majority of the other pollinators, and we have to take some of those sentinel species as indicators for those other species, but we certainly do know that something is beginning to go seriously wrong with the species that pollinate our crops, flowers and food.
	So I do not think the Committee had a choice in the conclusions it might reasonably draw from the material presented to it, given that, as legislators, we have to
	make choices when we are not necessarily complete experts in a subject. We are responsible for what happens and we have to take the best shot we can in terms of getting the best evidence available to inform our judgments. The evidence that came before the Committee demonstrated clearly a strong relationship, not only where neonicotinoids were used, but, for example, where crops were routinely dusted. Farmers cannot purchase oilseed rape seeds in this country that have not been dusted. Whether or not they think there is a problem with their crops, they simply have to plant those crops, which have, systemic within them, the effect of the neonicotinoid with which they have been dusted.
	The Committee heard about the various studies done by Henry, Whitehorn and Gill, which demonstrated a strong causal link between neonicotinoids and an effect on bees in a laboratory. We also heard about the continued difficulty in conducting adequate field trials. One person who contributed to our evidence suggested that getting scientific certainty from field trials would cost about £20 million and take 10 years, if that is what one wanted to do. So we cannot deal in absolute scientific certainty on these things and, in terms of decision making, nor should we. The conclusions that the Committee reached on what should be done about neonicotinoids are absolutely right, given what we, as legislators, are charged with doing. I continue to be a little dismayed about the extent to which it appears that this is not quite the route the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking in its representations on pesticides, pollinators and bees.
	I welcome the notion that further, and, we hope, much less flawed, field trials will be carried out urgently, which can get further indicators to the fore. I also welcome the idea that we should try to ensure that integrated approaches are brought to the fore in the future management of pesticides. It has been implied—the Committee unanimously felt that this was not the case—that there are no alternatives to neonicotinoids if they are taken off the roster of usable pesticides for those plants. I hope that we can use different methods of pesticide management and ensure that the crops are well maintained, with advice and assistance from DEFRA, in a way that a number of people say is not possible to do.
	We remain in a world in which there is an enormous amount that we do not know. I hope that DEFRA will monitor developments involving non-bee pollinators much more closely, will keep them well to the fore in terms of the views that it expresses and the action that it decides to take, and will continue to look at the evidence that is being produced about elements that are thought to be having an impact on colony decline. I hope that its consideration will bring together such issues as varroa mite habitats, food availability, husbandry, and, indeed, climate change, in order to create a more complete picture of what is going on.
	Let me emphasise again that we do not know the details of what is going on. We do not know what is the prime cause of decline. What we do know is that there is a decline, that it is very serious, and that we can do things about it. That is the essence of what the Committee is saying in the report. It does not seek to provide all the answers; it does not look for a silver bullet; but it does suggest that there is a strong case for taking action. I hope that DEFRA will take precisely the sort of action
	that we need, in order to ensure that our pollinators are healthier in the future and our ecosystem revives as a result.

Kerry McCarthy: The debate about pollinators and pesticides tends to be seen as a debate about bees and the decline of our bee population, but, in fact, more than 250 pollinating insects are threatened with extinction, including more than 50% of all wild bee species. A third of European butterfly species are in decline, with about 10% at risk of extinction. Over the last 70 years two species of bumble bee have become extinct in the United Kingdom, and six of the remaining 24 are listed as endangered.
	I was recently told by a constituent who is a county moth recorder for Gloucestershire that, according to “The State of Britain’s Larger Moths 2013”, produced by Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, Britain’s moth population has declined seriously in the last 40 years, and more than 60 species have become extinct since 1900.
	There are about 400,000 species of flowering plants. While some rely on wind to move pollen and a much smaller number rely on water, the vast majority—about 90%—depend on animals and insects to transfer pollen between flowers. The considerable decline in pollinators to which some of my hon. Friends have referred today poses several risks, but in particular it poses a risk to our food supply. Bees are thought to be responsible for the pollination of about a third of the food eaten by the world’s population. Twenty per cent. of the UK’s cropped area is made up of pollinator-dependent crops, which include most fruit and vegetables.
	I must confess that, as became clear when I met representatives of Friends of the Earth to discuss their campaign, I tended to think of bees as flower pollinators, and had not really thought about the food chain. However, almost all blueberries, grapefruits, avocados, cherries, apples, pears, plums, squashes, cucumbers, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries and macadamia nuts, along with many other products—I think that cabbages were mentioned—depend on the foraging activities of bees. Moreover, pollination is responsible not just for the quantity of food but for its quality, in terms of both taste and nutrients. Watermelons that are visited more frequently by pollinators tend to have darker fruit with a richer flavour. It is estimated that without bees, the availability of vitamin C could drop by 20%.
	The decline in pollinators also poses an economic risk. Their value to the UK Government is conservatively estimated to be £430 million per annum. Unless we halt the decline in British bees and other pollinators, our farmers might have to rely on hand pollination, which could cost farmers £1.8 billion a year in labour and pollen alone. That is increasingly happening in China, causing food prices to rise.
	There is also a risk to the environment. Pollinators are important for the quality of our gardens, parks and countryside. Their decline gives us a worrying early warning indication about the health of our environment. Tony Juniper says in his book, “What has nature ever done for us?”:
	“While governments would not consider neglecting our spending on power networks and transport infrastructure, the ‘green infrastructure’ was taken for granted.”
	He goes on to say:
	“We clearly possess the means to keep the world’s pollinator populations strong and robust, if we want to. All we have to do is invest in the many practical and often simple steps that will take us in that direction.”
	What are the remedies? I have received hundreds of e-mails from constituents, many of whom are gardeners, witnessing the decline of the bee population. They are also helping to create bee-friendly gardens and habitats to help bees to thrive. Unlike some rural areas, which can be a monoculture in terms of pollination potential, Bristol’s parks, gardens and even buildings are being used as rich sources for flowering plants. Cities have great potential as places for restoring habitats for bees.
	The Welsh Assembly is leading the way in taking action. It is currently consulting on its draft “Action Plan for Pollinators for Wales”, published in April. I have been urging the Bristol council member responsible for the environment, communities and equalities to adopt a pollinator action plan for Bristol along the same lines, given the importance of this for the Bristol area. A range of decisions taken by the current mayoral cabinet, from planning issues to management of public spaces, could have an impact on bee numbers. Indeed, local authorities could take proactive action to protect and create habitats for bees and other pollinators.
	Bristol is an ideal city to take the lead in reversing bee decline. We have been shortlisted alongside Brussels, Glasgow and Ljubljana to become European green capital for 2015, and we will find out next week whether we have won. We have a well-deserved reputation as the most sustainable city in the UK, with organisations including the Soil Association and the Environment Agency based in the city, and with our growing number of innovative green businesses and community-led initiatives. We were one of the first cities to set up a food policy council, which is driving sustainable food policies for the city, including by increasing the amount of land available for allotments, and Feed Bristol is running its “get growing” garden trail this weekend; the public can visit 27 sites and be inspired to get growing.
	I am delighted that a project to plant flower meadows across the city has won the mayor’s genius award for its efforts to transform the urban environment for pollinating insects. This urban pollinators project, led by the university of Bristol and working in partnership with the city council’s “meadow Bristol” project, is planting flower meadows in Bristol’s public parks and at schools, turning them into a haven for pollinating insects, as well as a beautiful display that everyone can enjoy. On 17 June in Bristol there will be a seminar called “bees, blooms and Bristol”, at which Professor Jane Memmott of the university of Bristol and others will be talking about how we can make Bristol even more pollinator-friendly. I hope that when the Government issue their planning practice guidance on biodiversity, which is expected soon, they will work with councils and the Welsh Assembly, giving them the guidance and impetus they need to protect and restore bee-friendly habitats.
	Finally, I want to turn to the issue of pesticides. It was remiss of me not to congratulate at the beginning of my speech the Environmental Audit Committee on its work. Scientists have stated conclusively that neonicotinoid pesticides pose unacceptable levels of risk to honey bees. I hope the Government will adopt the Committee’s recommendation that they should rewrite
	their national pesticides action plan to incentivise farmers to use non-pesticide methods of pest control and set out a route for reducing overall pesticide use. There needs to be a real shift towards more wildlife-friendly farming in the UK.
	I was pleased that the Committee investigated the use of pesticides both on agricultural seed and on plants and seeds sold by garden centres. One constituent, a secondary school teacher who has been planting a wild meadow in the school where she works, recently wrote to me when she was appalled to discover that the plants she was buying to attract insects could actually be harming them. I am pleased to learn from the report that many of the UK’s largest gardening retailers, including B&Q, Wickes and Homebase, have voluntarily withdrawn non-professional plant protection products that contain neonicotinoids, but I urge the Government to accept the Committee’s recommendation that we should implement a full ban on the sale of neonicotinoids for public domestic use, to help create an urban safe haven for pollinators.
	My final point is about the EU vote. As we have heard, the UK Government were one of eight Governments who voted against a ban, but thankfully the vote was carried by a narrow majority and the UK will not be able to opt out. The press has carried reports of intense secret lobbying by British Ministers on behalf of chemical companies in the run-up to the vote. In a letter released to The Observer under freedom of information rules, the Environment Secretary told the chemicals company Syngenta that he was “extremely disappointed” by the proposed ban. He said that
	“the UK has been very active”
	in opposing it and that
	“our efforts will continue and intensify in the coming days”.
	We know that the Government said that they opposed the ban because they felt that there was insufficient scientific evidence from field trials to justify one, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government went beyond that in working so closely with chemical companies to oppose this moderate two-year suspension while further tests are carried out.
	I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee on its report. Out of all the Committees in the House, it has produced some absolutely fascinating reports, such as its report on protecting the Arctic and the report on green investment that is coming up. This has been a very interesting debate.

Nia Griffith: I, too, congratulate the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and her team on the very thorough work they have done in this report. I also want to take the opportunity to express my concerns about the Government’s commitment to reversing bee decline, particularly in the light of the decision to vote against an EU-wide ban on neonicotinoid insecticides.
	The need for action to reverse bee decline is highly urgent. All species of bee in the UK, including wild bumble and solitary species as well as managed honey bees, are suffering steep decline. In the last century, the
	UK has lost 20 species of bee and 47 surviving species are considered to be vulnerable or endangered. Such a rapid decline in bee populations, not just in the UK but across the world, poses a serious threat to global food production, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has just mentioned.
	The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that about a third of all plants or plant products eaten by humans are dependent on bee pollination. The vital importance of bees to our environment and economy has long been known to the experts, but the critical role of our natural pollinators is only beginning to gain a wider appreciation.
	Imaginative national campaigns, such as the Friends of the Earth campaign for a bee action plan, have had an impact in informing people about bee decline and gathering momentum for a comprehensive strategy from the Government. It is clear that the importance of the issue has also hit home in countries such as France and Italy. Italy is not always known for its interest in the environment, but it has led the way in banning certain types of pesticide before the moratorium was voted on by the EU.
	For those of us who have been waiting for the Government to step up to the mark and action a comprehensive plan to reverse the ruinous decline in the UK’s bee population, the recent decision by Ministers to vote against the EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides came as a blow. Thankfully for the bee population, the weight of support for the ban among other EU member states enabled the European Commission to proceed with a two-year moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids, but the UK’s action confirmed the Government’s fundamental misunderstanding of their responsibility on the issue and betrayed a worrying lack of insight into where their priorities should lie.
	DEFRA Ministers are hiding behind the need for what they call “clearer proof” of harm to bees caused by neonicotinoids. Indeed, they attempted to discredit the findings of the European Food Safety Agency, which concluded that the insecticides represented a “high acute risk” to honey bees and other pollinators, by pointing out that they were based on the results of lab tests rather than “field evidence”. There were those that hoped that by capitalising on the difficulty of obtaining field evidence they could get away with maintaining the status quo.
	The UK field study cited by DEFRA Ministers as proof that neonicotinoids did not pose a risk to bees was pronounced hopelessly inadequate by EFSA. The bumblebee hives intended as controls in the experiment had been contaminated by neonicotinoids, and the study was found to be deficient in a large number of other ways. EFSA also expressed pointed concern about the manner in which the authors had
	“elaborated and interpreted the study results to reach their conclusions”.
	Needless to say, the study was brushed hastily under the carpet and Ministers were forced to stop touting it as sufficient proof that a ban was unnecessary, but the disregard for suggestive evidence that neonicotinoids cause harm and the massaging of scientific evidence to suit current policy causes real concern. Most troubling is that the Government have completely missed the point: in this situation, given the potential truly devastating
	effects of bee decline, it is the Government’s duty to act with appropriate caution—a duty they have utterly failed to recognise. In other words, DEFRA Ministers must apply the precautionary principle, as set out in the 1992 United Nations Rio declaration and the Lisbon treaty. It is not for the Government to entertain a value-based preference for false negatives—a desperate willingness to conclude that neonicotinoid pesticides are safe when they might not be. As the Environmental Audit Committee report states,
	“economic factors should not blur environmental risk assessment and risk management, where the protection of people and the environment must be paramount.”
	The sense of disappointment in the Government’s actions on bee-harming neonicotinoids is compounded by the fact that this is exactly the sort of issue—one that has far-reaching and potentially devastating environmental and economic implications—that we expect the UK to champion. We of all countries have always had a reputation for thorough scientific research, real concern for the environment and respect for the precautionary principle, and that the Government did not decide to take a proactive leading role in tackling bee decline related to pesticide use reflects very poorly on our nation’s attitude to environmental issues and severely damages the UK’s reputation for diligence and responsibility regarding the environment. The Government have not lived up to expectations. They should have had the foresight to lead; instead, they have allowed themselves to be beaten around by the big companies—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made clearly—and left us trailing behind.
	Now the Government must seize the chance to make a fresh start. The two-year moratorium on the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides on crops attractive to honey bees will provide an opportunity for DEFRA Ministers to carry out careful and impartial monitoring of the effect on bee populations of the removal of pesticides. That will be a positive action that demonstrates the UK’s appreciation of the seriousness of bee decline and its commitment to working to reverse it. It will also demonstrate the UK’s support for the work of the European Commission, which also plans to use the two-year suspension period to review new scientific evidence on how pollinators are faring more generally.
	The Government must also overhaul their national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides. It was necessary to take legal advice on whether the action plan complied with the minimum standards of the EU directive, which strongly suggests that the Government failed to see the directive as an opportunity to address the wider issue of pesticide use. In fact, UK use of insecticides on crops pollinated by bees remains on a steady upward trend. The Government must abandon their irresponsible, lacklustre approach and rewrite the action plan to incentivise farmers to use non-pesticide-based methods of pest control, making sure to include targets, measures and timetables for the reduction of pesticide use overall.
	The Government must also recognise their duty to apply the precautionary principle. Given what is at stake, DEFRA must commit itself to erring on the side of caution in matters relating to bee decline and in future complex matters relating to the protection of people and the environment. The Select Committee observed:
	“There is no compelling economic or agricultural case for neonicotinoid use in private gardens and on amenities such as golf courses”
	and said that that might provide DEFRA Ministers with an immediate opportunity to prove their commitment to the precautionary principle.
	It is time for the Government to turn themselves around and to move away from their disappointing behaviour on neonicotinoid insecticides by accepting the European moratorium with grace and applying themselves to tackling the harm caused to bees by pesticides. They also need to look more widely at their policy on bees and work to formulate and introduce a comprehensive bee action plan to save threatened habitats, promote bee-friendly farming and construction practices, and guide councils and the public on how they can protect our nation’s vital pollinators.
	On pesticides and on all these measures, the UK Government must take the lead. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that a UK-wide moratorium on the three neonicotinoid pesticides is fully in place by the deadline of 1 December? Will the Minister prove his commitment to countering the bee decline by setting quantitative targets for the reduction of all pesticide use and working hard to encourage the use of alternative pest management methods, as the EU directive requires? Will the Minister follow the example of the Labour Welsh Government’s draft action plan for pollinators, which sets out measures to help all bee species across all policy areas, including farming, conservation and planning? If so, when will he implement a UK-wide bee action plan? I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some answers this afternoon.

Tom Harris: I begin by echoing other Members’ tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for initiating the debate. Her Committee has published an important and powerful report on the subject and I commend all members of the Environmental Audit Committee for producing it. I am sure the Minister has pored over the document in detail and will give us his thoughts on it later this afternoon.
	Outstanding contributions have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). As usually happens when Front Benchers wind up these debates, we tend to be left with only the task of repeating many of the points that have already been made. It reminds me of the old saying that at any meeting everything that has to be said has already been said, but not everyone has said it yet. So I shall plough on regardless.
	The debate around neonicotinoids has brought the decline of bee and pollinator populations into sharp focus. The profound effects this will have on the future of horticulture, agriculture and the wider environment cannot be overstated. Bees and other pollinating insects play a vital role in our food supply, providing essential pollination services estimated to be worth £440 million to UK agriculture each year, as well as enriching our natural environment and biodiversity.
	Two months ago, in April, I convened what I ambitiously entitled a bee health summit, which was attended by leading academics, environmental groups, biotechnology companies, farming unions and representatives from leading apiary organisations. I apologise to the Minister for forgetting to invite him. I am sure his contributions would have been worth while. Predictably, there was a lack of agreement on the topical issue of a ban or moratorium on neonicotinoids, and the evidential base was hotly contested. It is clear that pesticides currently play an essential part in achieving high levels of crop production in the UK and elsewhere, providing affordable food for consumers and contributing to our food security. Getting the right balance between the benefits of natural pollination services and the benefits of pesticides to crop production is crucial.
	At the summit, there were passionate calls to support the use of the precautionary principle, which have been echoed in the debate today, to protect against further decline while additional evidence is gathered and analysed. These calls were countered by some bee health experts, bee organisations and, yes, the companies that produce neonicotinoids, which took a more cautious line based on the lack of any assessment of the impact of a ban on farmers’ use of alternative pesticide products and the impact on UK food production and food security.
	Such divides are not reserved to the UK, and a split in opinion was also observed at an EU level. However, now that the Commission has approved an EU-wide moratorium on the three types of neonicotinoids beginning in December 2013, it is vital that the Government work with all parties concerned to ensure that any negative, unintended consequences on bee health—for example, the hon. Member for Stroud referred to the wider use of spray insecticides—do not materialise.
	What plans do the Government have in place to support farmers in the build-up to and during the moratorium? Does the Minister agree that the moratorium provides an excellent opportunity to help farmers and growers to adopt integrated pest management and reduce the use of pesticides in line with the Government’s own pesticides action plan? Does the Minister agree with the Society of Biology, which has pushed for adequate and stable investment in agricultural research and environmental monitoring, in order to avoid periodic crises where sufficient evidence has not been available for necessary policy decisions? Will he outline how the Government will take advantage of the breathing space afforded by the moratorium to bridge the current gaps in scientific knowledge on the effects that neonicotinoids have on bees and other pollinators?
	It is crucial that a monitoring programme is put in place to assess the full impact of a moratorium and the effect that it will have on wild and managed bees and on farmers and their crops. Will the Minister assure the House that an effective monitoring programme will be put in place? I am sure that he, like me, is aware of significant concerns raised in the scientific community that two years will not be sufficient to monitor the effect on bee health of a moratorium on neonicotinoids, not least because of the multiple variables in the natural and farmed environments.

David Heath: indicated assent.

Tom Harris: I see the Minister nodding. Does he agree that those concerns should not deter the Government from co-ordinating the most effective scientific monitoring programme possible so that we can learn from the moratorium period?
	Although divides will undoubtedly pertain over a ban on neonicotinoids, during my bee health summit there was unanimous demand for a coherent strategy to reverse the decline in bee numbers and a recognition of the complex factors that need to be addressed, which go well beyond pesticides. Indeed, many warned that a ban on neonicotinoids could be seen as a panacea for the wider range of measures necessary to tackle bee decline. A moratorium does not represent a silver bullet.
	The first event that I attended after being appointed to the Front Bench just over a year ago was the Friends of the Earth bee breakfast. I soon got over my initial shock and disappointment—nay, anger—at the lack of breakfast actually being served, because the point was to show what would be available to eat in the event of a world that no longer had bees. That was a very clever, though frightening, way of getting the point across. I can assure Members that people did finally come forward with the toast, butter, honey and jam. They made the crucial point that neonicotinoids and pesticides were important, but only as part of the wider environmental impact that is resulting in bee decline and hive collapse.
	There are many causes behind pollinator decline, including changes in agricultural practice in the UK and across Europe; the growth in monocultural crops; the removal of hedges and other wildlife corridors; the increased use of fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides and herbicides; bee pests, including the Varroa mite and deadly pathogens such as Nosema; and the effect of climate change on patterns of flowering, hibernation and food availability. Those are all contributing to falling populations of bees and other pollinator insects. I have frequently voiced the opinion that if we allow ourselves to see the moratorium on neonicotinoids as a silver bullet for bee decline, we become complacent, think “Job done,” and fail to address the many other important issues that we face. It is clear that there is no single solution to the multiple threats that pollinators face, and that is why it is vital that we do not see the moratorium as a panacea.
	Labour believes that the Government have a crucial part to play in reversing falling populations. We commend Friends of the Earth for their work in promoting their national bee action plan, which would put a comprehensive set of UK-wide measures in place to tackle the many drivers of pollinator decline. Though Ministers have cited a number of Government-led initiatives to improve bee health, these ultimately fail to meet the scale and urgency of the task in hand. Current failure to tackle habitat loss, which needs to be approached from both a conservation and a planning perspective, is a prime example of where the Government are failing to make headway. On the conservation side, in their biodiversity strategy for England, “Biodiversity 2020”, they have not set out specific measures to help threatened bee species or to protect or restore habitats most important to bees, such as lowland meadows and upland hay meadows. Worryingly, DEFRA’s latest habitat trend data show that those habitats are in decline. Will the Minister ensure that they are urgently restored and that specific measures are put in place to help threatened bee species?
	The Government are set to publish planning practice guidance on biodiversity. That is an important opportunity to give councils guidance and impetus to protect and restore bee-friendly habitat through the planning system. However, so far there has been no evidence that the Government are planning to take that opportunity or even to issue the guidance for public consultation. Has the Minister spoken yet with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government regarding this matter, and if so, has he impressed upon them the importance of the issue?
	Labour will continue to work with farmers and horticulturists and with bee and environmental organisations to create a future of secure and affordable food produce from a natural and farm environment that minimises the risk to our pollinators and enhances our countryside, wildlife, habitats and biodiversity. In order to do that, I urge the Government once again to use the moratorium period to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge of the effects of pesticides and to bring forward urgently a comprehensive national bee action plan to reverse the awful decline in bee health.

David Heath: This has been an extremely good debate and I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and her Committee for their report. She knows that we have had a short delay in responding to her, for the precise reasons that she had a short delay in producing the report. The circumstances have been changing quickly and we want to get it right, so I apologise to her and her Committee for that. My noble friend Lord de Mauley is responsible for this area, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that it falls to me to respond to the debate in this House.
	I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) for his balanced remarks, which showed that this is a complex issue. I am interested in it, not least because as Minister for agriculture I know that bees and pollinators are crucial. I cannot underline sufficiently how important pollinators are to agriculture and horticulture, so of course I have that interest.
	I also have an enormous personal interest in the issue. I spoke from the Opposition Benches about bees for a very long time. I spoke on the subject right back in June 1998, when I said:
	“We need a step change in investment in the investigation of bee disease if we are to stem a worldwide phenomenon that is lapping at our doorstep and has the potential to become a crisis, both for the insect population and in economic terms”.—[Official Report, 17 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 204WH.]
	That is what I said in 1998, so people are now free to quote that back at me, but I meant it. We were arguing then in the context of very little work at Government level on bees. It took the best part of a decade before we pressed the previous Government to start taking the issue of bees and pollinators seriously, which they did: we now have the national bee unit and I think we now need to go one step further in our approach.
	I welcome the opportunity to highlight what the Government have been doing in relation both to pollinators and pesticides and to our future plans. We take this issue extremely seriously. It is crucial. Contrary to what some have said, specifically in relation to neonicotinoid insecticides, we have kept the evidence under close and
	open-minded scrutiny and we continue to do so. We will restrict the use of insecticides. Obviously, neonicotinoids are now dealt with under the moratorium, but we will deal with others as well, if the evidence shows that there is a need to do so. I will come back to that point later.
	The hon. Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Glasgow South pointed out that pollinators face many other challenges. It is critical that one issue, such as the use of particular pesticides, does not dominate the debate, because so many other individual factors, when taken together, have a complex effect on our pollinator population.

Joan Walley: The Minister has said that the Government will take action if the evidence shows that they need to. Will he explain how that relates to the moratorium delivered by the European Commission?

David Heath: I will come back to the specific issue of neonicotinoids in a moment. The moratorium is in place, so we will, of course, fully comply with it. We do not not comply with decisions of that kind. I will return to the evidence, because it is a critical issue.
	I repeat that bees are essential to the health of our natural environment and the prosperity of our farming industry. The “Biodiversity 2020” document has been mentioned. We have set ourselves the challenge of achieving an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and preventing further human induced extinctions of known threatened species. We have put a landscape scale approach to biodiversity conservation at the heart of “Biodiversity 2020”. It is vital that that approach is effective in helping to conserve our most threatened species.
	Nature improvement areas are beginning to make a difference for species on the ground. The 12 Government-funded NIAs are by no means the sum total of our ambitions. We want to see that approach rolled out more widely by enthusiasts across the country. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is seeing exactly that in her city. We want that to be extended and it is clearly already happening.
	We want to make environmental stewardship more effective. As the House knows, we are in the process of negotiating CAP reform. It is not clear what the outcomes will be. We do not know the extent to which greening measures will be in pillar 1 or pillar 2, or the exact recipe that will emerge from our decisions on agri-environmental schemes that derive from pillar 2 or voluntary modulation. This matter is a key consideration in that context and I will certainly be pressing for it in the outcome.

Nia Griffith: The European Scrutiny Committee has requested a debate on CAP reform. Will the Minister say when that is likely to be scheduled?

David Heath: I am responsible for a large number of things in my Department, but the scheduling of House business is not one of them. In my previous post, I might have been able to give the hon. Lady an answer, but in my current post I cannot. To be honest, now would not be the best time to have that debate because we are just reaching what we hope will be a conclusive meeting of the Council of Ministers. After that, we will have a much clearer idea of the outcomes and how they will be effected in the UK.
	We recognise that there is still a need for targeted conservation action for our most threatened species. Natural England’s species recovery programme is designed to help with projects to support priority species, such as the short-haired bumblebee. Many Members have made the point that we are talking not just about the honey bee, but about many other native bee species and other non-bee pollinators. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley has announced that he is considering the development of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators. He has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach could bring.
	We will continue with our wider work to understand and counter the various factors that harm bees and other pollinators. DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser and Ministers have met a number of interested parties to discuss that work, including non-governmental organisations. We will seek to host discussions with other stakeholders over the summer.
	As I have said, there are many things that we do not yet understand about the reductions in pollinator populations. There are many major factors, including the varroa mite, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), foulbrood and the undoubted effects of climate change and environmental and ecological changes in this country. That is why some experts are very unclear as to the quantifiable effect of pesticides. The British Beekeepers Association keeps an open mind on that, as do we. We want to know what the connections are and to see the evidence.
	Let us return to the issue of pesticides. As we heard in the debate, the European Commission recently adopted a ban on the use of three neonicotinoids on crops that are “attractive to bees” and on some cereal crops. The ban also covers amateur use, so the Government do not need to bring in an extension.
	It is documented that we did not support action, the reason being that we had urged the Commission to complete a full assessment of the available scientific evidence, taking into account new field research that we had carried out. Let us talk about that because it is a serious issue. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North asked whether we reject laboratory evidence, but of course we do not; it is extraordinarily important. However, we would like some coherence between what we see in the laboratory and what we see in field trials. That does not make field trials the only thing that matter, but such a correlation is not presently there.
	From laboratory tests we are clear that neonicotinoids have a toxicity for bees. We do not know, however, what the exposure is in a natural environment, and the two things go together. Many things are toxic but do not create a deleterious effect in the field simply because the exposure is too low. That is where we must do a lot more work, and that is exactly where we are commissioning it. We were clear that the work done by FERA was by no means a satisfactory field trial. We never pretended that it was; it had to be done quickly to meet a timetable—set not by us, but by others—to give at least some indication of whether that correlation was there. Incidentally, I will not accept criticism of FERA scientists on that basis. They are extremely good and do their work in a totally dispassionate and independent way on the best scientific principles. They were asked to do a quick piece
	of work—which they did—and that is why it was not peer reviewed, as would be normal practice. We felt it was important to put the matter in the hands of the Commission, which was about to make a decision on a highly contentious subject.
	I make no apologies for recognising that there is, of course, a strong imperative to look at evidence that suggests a toxic consequence and, where possible, to take a precautionary approach to these matters. However, a precautionary approach is not as two-dimensional as sometimes suggested and must take into account the consequences of the action in question. The hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned the economic consequences, and of course that is a factor, although not an overriding one.
	Of far more concern is a point also raised by hon. Members about alternative pesticides that are fully legal under EU law and that it would be perfectly proper for people to use, such as pyrethroids, organophosphates or carbamates, because the potential is that they would be even more damaging to the pollinator population. That concern does not mean that we should not take action against neonicotinoids if the evidence is clear that they are causing problems in field conditions, but it was not unreasonable to say that the paucity of field-trial evidence was astonishing.
	I do not have portfolio responsibility for this matter, but when I looked at it with a view sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North was saying, I was amazed at how little evidence there was in field conditions, which I think exposes a failure of the scientific world to address the problem. I hope that we can play our part in persuading others across the European Union to take a more rational view of where we concentrate our research so that we get the evidence we need, and that is what we are trying to do. Although our assessment is that the risk to the bee population from neonicotinoids, as currently used, is low, we may be wrong and evidence may come forward from trials that shows otherwise. If such evidence is there, we shall, of course, accept it, but we need more complete evidence than we currently have.
	The European Commission has committed itself to a review of evidence by 2015, which we want to be founded firmly on a strengthened scientific evidence base. We will play our part in that and are currently talking about the design of field trials that might be in place during the moratorium period, so that we can gather evidence, not just on the honey bee, but on other bee species as well. The FERA research was on the bumblebee rather than the honey bee. It is important that we understand how other species are affected.

Andrew Stunell: I take a great deal of pleasure in knowing how much my hon. Friend knows about the subject and how sincerely he takes it to heart, but does he understand that some of my constituents see the careful words he has just spoken as indicating that the Government are ducking and weaving? May I ask him, in the nicest possible way, whether the Government will be in a position to take a decision when the further research is done or whether they will want still more research to be that little bit more certain?

David Heath: Let me be very clear—I am not the world’s greatest scientist, although I have a scientific degree—that we cannot have scientific certainty; we can have only a balance of probabilities based on evidence. We think
	that the evidential basis for the decision is weak because we do not have evidence from field trials. If the evidence suggests that laboratory results are replicated in field conditions, we will want to take a decision, because we want to protect our pollinator populations. That is important.
	I have very little time left because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North needs to respond to the debate. She asked three questions, including one on the precautionary principle. I hope I have explained our approach on that. She asked about the research and the difference between laboratory and field studies, and about the EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, which I believe the Government will implement in full. More work needs to be done on pesticides across the board. It is a misrepresentation to say that the wicked seed companies are pulling the wool over the eyes of the rest of the world. We need transparency of evidence so we know exactly what is happening during the regulatory process and beyond. We are speaking to those companies to ensure that they provide the greatest possible transparency.
	The hon. Lady asked what changed between the abstention and the decision to vote no. The answer is that we pressed and pressed again on the need to commission the evidence that we believe would have given a sound basis for the decision, but we did not secure agreement. That is why we are in the position we are in.
	The Government are determined to do everything we can to protect our bees and pollinators. They are essential not only to our economy, but to our environment and our ecology. We will take all necessary steps to do so.

Joan Walley: This has been a useful debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the
	hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), and my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Martin Caton), for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). The Environmental Audit Committee will consider what we can do to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East in her efforts to make Bristol the capital of green cities. We have had the Friends of the Earth breakfast. In view of our debate, the question is whether, at quarter to 3 or two minutes to 5, there is honey still for tea.
	The Committee has sought to produce a timely and considered report. We intend our recommendations to be part of an ongoing process of parliamentary scrutiny. It might be in our interests that the Government response will be delayed, just as the integrated pest management report was delayed—it might be in our interests if the delay means we will get a more informed response, and if the Committee will have greater engagement on how such multifaceted issues can be developed. The breathing space of the moratorium we have as a result of the European Commission might help to take the debate forward, and we would welcome a fully informed response from the Government. However, we do not want the Government simply to dismiss the Committee’s work, and we do not want the lack of targets and everything else in the integrated pest control plan to continue. The Committee is a team and this has been a team effort. We want to engage with the Government on how we can ensure, working with farmers and business, and all those people in the British countryside—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on this very important issue. I mean no disrespect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is a shame that Mr Speaker is not in the Chair, because he has been a great champion of speech, language and communication needs down the years. It is worth quoting his key comment from the Bercow report:
	“'Communication is crucial. Recognising that is right in terms of equity for those in need and right in the national interest as we all wish to cut the costs of failure”.
	Nowhere is that clearer than with augmentative and assistive communication. As that is rather a mouthful, I shall refer to it as AAC.
	AAC is a series of aids, some complex and some not so complex, that assist those with neurological conditions that make it hard for them to express themselves. I was delighted when I received a commitment from the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions in March that, as a result of the new commissioning landscape in the NHS, it would be available to more children and adults. I welcome that, and my aim is to ensure that it can actually happen.
	I have a personal interest in this subject; it is not something I acquired when I was elected. I attended Hebden Green special school at the age of just three or four, and many of my fellow pupils would have benefited from these complex aids. It gives me real pleasure that one of my pupils, Alexis Egerton, recently gained a PhD thanks to utilising a complex powered aid—an example of how AAC can change people’s lives.
	I am grateful to the Minister for the time he was able to spend yesterday meeting me and representatives from Communication Matters and the ACE Centre. I apologise for detaining him further today with a variation on the same theme. It is worth focusing on how the users of the aids feel about how the system currently works. Toby Hewson is an AAC user. He said:
	“I cannot express adequately how frustrating it is for people with disabilities to have to battle with the system in the way we are forced to do...like a game of pass-the-parcel, people like me are sidelined and marginalised until we are exhausted.”
	That is just an indication of the frustration so many people, and their families, feel about a system that has not yet worked properly for them.
	I would be misleading the House and unfair to the Government if I did not make it clear that a great deal of progress has been made, not least through the Bercow report, the work of communication champion Jean Gross and the decision to ensure that most of the commissioning will occur at a national level. I hope that the Minister can act like a statin in the arteries of NHS England to allow what is good to occur, and for policy to be implemented in the way that I am sure everybody in the Department of Health wants it to be implemented.
	However, I would also be misleading the House if I did not express some of the concerns about how policy is being implemented. The issue can be as fundamental as the funding mechanism deployed. I am sure that we
	would all agree that NHS England has to start from somewhere in deciding how much money it will allocate to this type of provision. I am reminded of the farmer leaning over a fence who is asked by a walker, “How do I get to Blackpool?” He replies, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here.” I would not start from where NHS England is starting, because it intends to use historical budgets, which might sound perfectly sensible—perfectly obvious perhaps—but if all that involves is ringing up a local hospital manager and asking how much he spends on AAC, when he might not even know what AAC is, I do not think it a particularly satisfactory starting point.
	It is more frustrating still given the work done on levels of need by the communication champion—available to NHS England—and further reports since from the University of Manchester. We know the level of provision and unmet need: 0.014% of the population currently use a powered aid, but total need is 0.05%. I am sure that the Minister can do the maths. It is about 3.5 times what is currently being funded. I am not making the predictable everyday point that more must be spent—far from it—but I want NHS England to begin from a sensible starting point when making its decisions.

Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. I warmly commend his work to bring this matter to public attention. He and I have constituents at Highfurlong school and other special schools in Blackpool where these issues are very important. I have had correspondence from two constituents involved with the school. I know that Governments are not always keen on ring-fenced budgets. Does he agree, however, that NHS England should take account of the technology to come, rather than relying on past practice?

Paul Maynard: Indeed. We disagree on many things, but on that issue the hon. Gentleman and I can agree. In Highfurlong, we have an excellent provider of specialist communication provision, so I hope he shares my concern at the proposals, which look to be coming from the local council, that could result in Highfurlong being shut. It causes me great concern, as it does many parents in his constituency and mine, so I hope he will join me in ensuring that Highfurlong is not threatened in the way it might be.
	The funding decisions being made have consequences for the proposed hub-and-spoke model. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that clinical commissioning groups should not interpret the existence of specialist hubs as a justification for winding down their investment in local spokes. That, to me, is crucial, if only because of the issue of complexity. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) alluded to that.

Sarah Wollaston: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my constituents with children using these important assisted technologies that what matters is not just providing the equipment, but the cost of providing training and support, without which children and adults cannot benefit fully from these important technologies?

Paul Maynard: I thank my hon. Friend for that perceptive contribution. The concern is that NHS England’s budget for AAC will not be sufficient for training. The
	only way that the hub-and-spoke model can work effectively is if the hub can train up more people in the spokes to deliver the more complex tools. Complexity is at the heart of the problem in the structure. AAC is one of five areas for which complex disability equipment is to be commissioned nationally—incidentally, another is artificial eyes, the national centre for which is based in my constituency. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate that centre during an Adjournment debate on a parallel issue. As I was saying, though, complexity is the key: it determines whether a patient is treated at the hub or at the spoke.
	A stroke patient will receive a relatively straightforward medical diagnosis—it might be a devastating incident in their personal life, but its medical nature is relatively simple. None the less, what will restore the power of communication to someone who has lost it will be a complex piece of kit, yet under the current rules, as I understand them, it would be commissioned in the spoke. If the skills are not there to utilise that piece of equipment, that stroke patient will not benefit, so complexity of need has to be balanced by the complexity of the product being supplied. That is crucial.
	The other issue on which I want to draw out the Minister is the concerns of worried providers in the voluntary sector about their ability to bid for commissions from NHS England. There has been a long-running battle over whether AAC should be based in the education or the health sector. It is now clear that it will be based in the health sector, but one of the key elements of what NHS England seeks to commission is an educational component in a multi-disciplinary team. That component is most often found in organisations such as the ACE Centre, the Dame Hannah Rogers Trust, near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), or the Percy Hedley school, up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). They all have immense expertise, yet they greatly fear that the mood music emanating from NHS England suggests that they will be unable to bid for such provision, because of an understanding that it must be supplied by an NHS provider. That seems strange, given all that the Government have said down the years about trying to ensure a broader spectrum of provision—that more civil society organisations can provide such services. I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on that.
	I would also like a commitment from the Minister—this is another fundamental aspect—that this really is a health issue and no longer just an education issue. I hear far too many heartbreaking stories of children who are equipped with complex equipment when in school but, because it is funded by the Department for Education, lose it when they leave. It is not just a piece of kit they are losing; it is their ability to express themselves as fully formed adults. That is why it is so important that this becomes a health issue, not just an education issue.
	My final query is rather technical—I beg the Minister’s forgiveness, but this goes back to acting like a statin in NHS England. A clinical reference group has been set up, but it has yet to meet—it is in a form of limbo, as it were. There is yet greater uncertainty, not merely because it has not met, but because the gentleman who chairs it, one Dr Thursfield, is shortly to retire from his academic post at the University of Birmingham. There is grave concern that his uncertain status in the clinical reference
	group is imperilling its ability to meet, take decisions and do its job. Alexis Egerton—the gentleman I mentioned earlier—was disappointed not to be appointed as a patient representative on the clinical reference group. I have known Alexis since my youngest days. He did his PhD on the funding of AAC provision, and it would be immensely valuable to the Government and the nation as a whole if we could find a way to allow him to play a role in that.
	Finally—I want to ensure that the Minister has time to respond fully—will he bear in mind that the right to have a voice is a fundamental human right? We have an opportunity in this place to represent our constituents. If, in doing so, we give a voice to some who hitherto did not have one, we will have spent a useful half-hour in this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Cathy Jamieson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to hon. Members for having to raise this point of order at the end of a passionate speech in an important debate. I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today I had a telephone call from someone in the press asking me to comment on a parliamentary question I had asked and for which they had the answer. Unfortunately I was not party to that answer, as it had not been delivered to me. When I contacted the Table Office, it could not elucidate either. I was, however, able to obtain a scanned copy from the press. Would you agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is not the way to conduct business and ensure that Members are appropriately briefed?

Lindsay Hoyle: It certainly is not good form; in fact, it is very bad form. The Member should always know at least at the same time, but preferably before. The matter is now on record and I hope that those on the Front Bench will pass it on, so that we can get to the bottom of it.

Norman Lamb: I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for raising this issue, and for his work, together with that of colleagues, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties. An occasion such as this is particularly valuable, as was the meeting that we had yesterday, in ensuring that Ministers focus on issues that might otherwise not get attention. I learned a lot from the meeting yesterday, and from my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech today. He clearly speaks with real authority on this subject. I was struck by his point about the lad who ended up with a PhD as a result of the support that these facilities can provide. He made the point very powerfully that they can change lives.
	Augmentative and alternative or assistive communication is one of the more specialised areas of health and education provision. The number of children who will require support in this way is relatively small, perhaps less than 0.5% of the population, so it is important that we do not lose sight of them. My hon. Friend rightly made the point that the ability to speak and communicate is a pretty basic human right, and that it should be recognised as such.
	Augmented communication has the potential to have a tremendous beneficial impact on the health and well-being of those whose condition places barriers between themselves and others, which until recently were insurmountable, and indeed, on their families and friends. Technological and therapeutic advances have in recent years revolutionised the support that can be given to those who have lost, or never had, the tools of speech and language that allow us all to interact and that are critical to development, to education, to work and to living one’s life. Augmentative and assistive communication—AAC—aids range from tools for paper-based communication to pretty sophisticated electronic equipment.
	Support in the past has not always been of sufficient consistency and quality, and the Bercow review in 2007 and the subsequent work of the Communication Champion, Jean Gross, have helped to identify systemic improvements, culminating in a new approach to the commissioning of AAC that began just a few months ago. It is worth pointing out that the new system is in its very early days. I was pleased that my hon. Friend acknowledged that it had the potential to work effectively. It is perhaps understandable that we have not got it quite as we would want it to be, given the early stage that we are at, but I agree that it has enormous potential. There is significant clinical consensus behind the new approach, and I am proud to say that it has been developed from the new structures of commissioning that this Government have introduced into the NHS.
	In April this year, NHS England took on responsibility for the direct commissioning of specialised assessment and the provision of augmentative and assistive communication aids for adults, children and young people. NHS England’s role as an independent national commissioner is particularly suited to the effective commissioning of extremely complex, yet relatively low volume, services of this kind. Let us bear in mind that the patients who require AAC aids have extremely complex needs and in many cases require bespoke equipment that has been designed for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) mentioned the training involved in the use of such equipment. It could not feasibly be provided by small-scale local services. Assessment and provision is needed by specialised tertiary providers with their concentration of expertise.
	Previously, we had no national commissioning of AAC services and improvement across the board was essential. There was no standard or nationally consistent definition of those services, which were the commissioning and funding responsibility of the NHS. The effect of that was variation in the organisations commissioning and funding specialised AAC services and, crucially, inequitable access to them. There was a mix of non-NHS commissioning agencies, including social care and the education sector, to which my hon. Friend referred, and charity and third sector funding agencies that were commissioning the assessment and provision of specialised AAC aids. It was haphazard, depending very much on where people lived. That was unfair to those in need, and far from ideal for commissioners or providers.
	That has now changed. NHS England—committed to ensuring national consistent commissioning of high quality, equitable and effective specialised services—has
	worked with the expert partners on its clinical reference group for complex disability to develop for the first time a nationally consistent specification for specialised AAC aids, which was subject to public consultation. The specification has allowed a clear demarcation of the responsibilities of clinical commissioning groups in relation to less specialised AACs—around 90% of the total provision. The highly specialised services will be commissioned by NHS England. It will be an important role for NHS England to work to support CCGs in their commissioning of the less specialised end of the spectrum and to ensure that we build capacity rather than lose it, as my hon. Friend feared could happen. If we get this right, the potential of having this specialist team working nationally with local commissioners could be significant.
	In implementing the specification, NHS England will draw on the recommendations of the Bercow review and the Government communication champion to consider, in particular, how best to ensure more consistent and responsive commissioning of AAC aids across England and the implications of meeting unmet need. We know from recent research from Communication Matters that there is variation in service provision across England—the postcode lottery to which I referred—and inconsistency in identifying, assessing and providing AAC services.
	A key priority is therefore to ensure that commissioning arrangements for this specialised service are placed on a much more robust and equitable footing across England. NHS England is working with its clinical reference groups and area teams to identify areas where there may be inequalities and where additional resources may be required to bring about better access. The clinical expertise both embedded in the organisation and accessed through its close association and close partnership working with organisations such as ACE—Aiding Communication in Education—will be decisive in this. I met Anna Reeves of ACE yesterday, and I would like to pay tribute to the amazing work she has done in leading the case for much better access to these services. She has worked tirelessly in that regard and should be credited for doing so.
	I would also like to acknowledge the potential benefits of clinically-led commissioning of services for children with special educational needs as part of new joint arrangements, which will also provide far more tailored support, focused on the health and lifestyle outcomes for the child, for the developmental needs of children who require AAC aids. The Children and Families Bill sets out a framework for a new integrated approach to meeting the needs of children and young people with special educational needs. This will include many children, potentially the majority, of children in need of AAC aids.
	In brief, the Bill’s provisions will get clinical commissioning groups and local authorities—and, in some cases, the NHS Commissioning Board, where it is acting as a commissioner of services for a child or young person—to enter into joint arrangements to assess, plan and commission the services needed by children and young people with special educational needs. Each child’s improvement outcomes, and the services they need to deliver them, will be captured in the education, health and care plan, to which the relevant commissioners will contribute. That is a much more joined-up approach than we have ever had in the past.
	The new arrangements will be introduced in 2014, Parliament allowing. Twenty pathfinder local authorities are piloting new approaches to integrated assessments and the plans currently. The amended Bill now includes a duty on CCGs to secure the services that they agree the individual needs and which comprise the education, health and care plan. We have specifically required in the mandate for the NHS—the Government’s priorities—the need for improvement, through partnership working, to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and for ensuring that children have access to the services identified in the agreed care plan. AAC support will be a significant part of these plans for many children.
	NHS England and CCGs will need to work closely with local authorities and, of course, health and wellbeing boards, which will include the local authority director of children’s services and the local healthwatch. That is the vehicle for a consensual local identification of needs and a local strategy for meeting them. The health and wellbeing board must, as our guidance makes clear, have particular regard for hard-to-reach groups and those with complex conditions, which will require more specialised health services, as well as ensuring it has an in-depth understanding of more widespread health needs among the population.

Andrew Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on initiating this important debate. In the allocation of resources and the approval of plans, what mechanisms for appeal will there be for individuals who feel that they have not been fairly treated, or indeed for areas that feel that?

Norman Lamb: There will be the potential to challenge and question to ensure that the individual is satisfied that their case has been properly heard, but I will also write to the right hon. Gentleman to fill in the details further to ensure that he understands the position fully.
	Let me make a quick point about the historical budgets to which my hon. Friend the Member for
	Blackpool North and Cleveleys referred. To start with, NHS England has worked on the basis of the amount spent hitherto. It is important to say that work is very much ongoing on this matter, and it is absolutely recognised that it is important to get it right and to assess the level of need so that we can identify how much needs to be spend on it. This is not a done deal and he should not assume that this is the end of the story. He also made a point about organisations with great expertise which could be excluded from being able to play a part in this. I can reassure him that they will be able to bid to do work. He also made the point about loss of equipment on leaving school, and it is really important that that is avoided; that sort of thing is utterly crazy and we must ensure continuity. As he rightly said, this is a health issue and it must be recognised as such. He talked about the hub-and-spoke issue. The relationship between the expert team nationally and the CCGs has the potential to work well to build capacity within the system to improve the level of expertise available and to ensure a more consistent approach.
	I hope that what I have said today provides significant reassurance to hon. Members about the robustness of the new approach to deliver AAC aids, not least in the role of NHS England in leading the development of expert service specifications and implementing them in a national programme of commissioning to deliver improved and responsive communication support. We are not complacent and, together with NHS England, we understand that more needs to be done to ensure absolute consistency across England, so that everyone who needs it has access to high-quality, equitable and effective AAC support. But we have in place the right system to deliver that; my profound belief is that we will shortly be able to recognise NHS England, in this regard, as an exemplar of the effective design and commissioning of specialised services.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.